Redefining pro-life

The hardening of abortion into the pillars of political parties is showing fractures.

image: Heidi Will

Whether abortion is a human right belonging to a woman or a human right that belongs to the foetus used to be a philosophical and religious debate. Now it’s about politics. Republicans in the U.S. and a majority of conservatives in Canada are against abortion. Democrats and progressives in Canada support justifiable abortions.

The abortion issue moved into political camps decades ago. The landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 declared that women had the right to choose an abortion. In response, anti-abortion groups began to rapidly mobilize and the “Human Life Amendment” was proposed.

Because it’s better to be seen as for something rather than against it, anti-abortion groups decided to call themselves “pro-life.”

Abortion supporters argue that the when life is at stake, it’s the life of the mother which matters. In a reaction to the pro-life branding, abortion supporters had to come up with a strong brand of their own. “Pro-abortion” doesn’t quite do it because women don’t necessarily want to have an abortion –they just want to shed the yoke of paternalism that dictates what’s best for them.

In response to the pro-life movement, supporters of abortion-as-an-option branded themselves as “pro-choice.” It’s a clever label in an age of commercialism because what consumer doesn’t want a choice? It also fits nicely into to the evolving image of women, and citizens in general, as individual agents rather than servants of the church and state.

Women as free-thinking-citizens is a relatively new phenomena. Only a hundred years ago, women and children were considered the property of men and property doesn’t have an opinion worth considering.

Thanks to U.S. President Trump, the tribalism of pro-life is beginning to fracture. Pro-life Republicans are conflicted by support of this misogynist president.

Tess Clark grew up in Texas and always considered support for the Republican party her “Christian duty (Globe and Mail, December 7, 2018).” All of her life the issues of abortion and immigration made voting Republican her “Christian duty.” Clark recently told The New York Times that the pro-life movement should oppose hard-line treatment of border crossers.

Clark was so sickened by Trump and his crackdown on Honduran families trying to enter the U.S. that she has redefined what it means to be pro-life. She now equates the separation of Honduran families with “a baby in its mother’s womb.” “I feel that being pro-life is being pro all life,” she said.

Chelsey Yeaton, a student at a Christian college in Illinois and a member of Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, has also redefined what pro-life means to her in environmental terms.

“If we say we’re pro-life, we have to care for people who are experiencing incredible environmental degradation …,” Yeaton said in a recent interview. “If we’re pro-life, that’s a bigger issue to me than abortion.”

Whether to have an abortion or not is obviously not a trivial matter but the decision shouldn’t be based on politics. The expansion of the pro-life movement into other aspects of a healthy life is a welcome approach.

 

Advertisement

When am I dead?

When I’m dead I won’t be writing these columns. But other than that, indication of my demise might not be certain. The problem is that our definitions of death vary according to legal, cultural, religious and philosophical perspectives.

  image: slideserve.com

There was some dispute about whether Taquisha McKitty of Brampton was dead. Doctors said she was but her parents disagreed. She went into cardiac arrest following a drug overdose and was declared neurologically dead. A death certificate was issued.

McKitty’s father said: “My daughter is not dead -she shows that every day.” He maintains that his daughter shows signs of life: squeezing the hands of loved ones and even shedding tears.

Whether she was living was finally decided through a court decision. A judge ruled that McKitty was, in fact, dead.

Keeping someone alive with life support is not an issue. Canadians are kept alive with pacemakers, kidney dialysis, mechanical hearts and lungs while awaiting transplants. The issue is whether we should maintain one’s bodily functions when they are dead.

McKitty’s family might disagree with my last sentence. If they believe that bodily functions define life, then the squeezing of hands indicates that Taquisha was alive.

Others could argue that breath itself is life. If so, breathing is an indication of life. Genesis 2:7 says: “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

Still others believe that the soul, the essence of life, resides in the heart. The ancient Egyptians thought that the heart was vital. During mummification, they discarded the brain by removing it through the nose but kept the heart. They likely believed that as long as the heart is pumping, a person is alive.

In Western culture, the brain defines life because it’s the seat of the mind. Some philosophers suggest that it’s the mind that defines life. They argue that since the mind resides in the brain, and because the brain is a (biological) machine, the mind could reside in any machine. If complex computer could be built, the mind could continue to live in a solid state environment without a body.

The Japanese would disagree. They see the body and mind as a single unit so that the mind is not independent of the brain. To be alive is to experience bodily sensations and desires as well as cerebral thoughts.

The judge in McKitty’s case ruled that the brain is central in determining death. If the brain is dead, so is the mind. This opinion coincides with doctors’ assessments. Dr. Sonny Dhanani, a pediatric critical care physician in Ottawa, concludes:

“When brain death occurs, there is no blood and oxygen going to it. The brain ceases all function. There are no functions left to be lost. This means there is the irreversible loss of any ability to have thoughts or feelings or memories (Globe and Mail, July 6, 2018).”

I won’t know when I’m dead and given the definitions of life, maybe no one else will be sure any time soon.