We're the lifers, until the bitter end

Since I'm such a commie pinko bastard, I follow Mother Jones on Twitter.  One of their biggest stories this week revolved around a legislative initiative in South Dakota, which (until it was officially shelved) would have classified taking the life of another person to save the life of a fetus as "justifiable homicide."  In other words, killing an abortionist could quite possibly be construed as justifiable homicide provided that the act of killing could be tied directly to saving the life of a fetus.


Now, I am a rare breed in the liberal/progressive circles in which I run - a pro-life progressive.  There aren't a ton of us; most of my fellow faith-driven left-leaning brothers and sisters tend to fall into the "I would never get one, but it's better to keep it safe, legal, and rare" camp...and I totally get the argument behind that stance.  It acknowledges the reality that abortion is as old as unplanned/undesired pregnancy, and that even when it is illegal, it still takes place in clinic back rooms or, worse, dark alleys.  In the interest of saving the life of the women who would be seeking out an abortion regardless of its legality, it should be kept legal so that the procedure can be carried out in a sanitary way without fear of reprisal.  I totally get that.


I do, however, disagree on one fundamental point, which is the notion of "you can't legislate morality." Yes, you can - and do.  Most legislation is, at the end of the day, morality.  My commitment to human life, based out of my conviction that taking the life of another human is almost never justifiable, compels me to condemn a system of thinking in which a being that ought to count as a human (albeit one in utero) is somehow less deserving of life.  Of course, the waters get muddied once issues of medical necessity, rape, and incest come into play, and at the end of the day, barring abortion in cases of medical necessity doesn't scan well with my life-ethic, either...if it's a choice between one death or two, sacrificing one life to save another is a marginally better option in an entirely tragic scenario.


Of course, being pro-life for me doesn't mean I'm just opposed to abortion in most cases.  It's why I'm against the death penalty, opposed to armed conflict in almost all cases, in favor of reasonable laws about usage and possession of firearms, in favor of finding an effective means of providing universal healthcare, and dedicated to working for peace and justice in our nation and world.  Life isn't just something inside a womb; it's perhaps the single greatest testimony to the existence of God, and it seems to me that the deepest expression of our human sinfulness is in our silencing that testimony.


I read an article earlier today talking about the shift for many in the pro-life camp in the opposite direction of the shelved SD bill - toward acknowledging that most pro-choice advocates are interested in quality of life rather than in promoting abortion-on-demand as retroactive contraceptive.  Kudos for those with the integrity to really, truly stand up for life rather than just a political agenda by extending a pledge to people of other beliefs that we can work together to make the causes of abortion disappear...that'll save a lot more lives than declaring war on abortion clinics.