The semantics of abortion

This is a particular belief of Christians, who hold that the human person is accorded a special dignity because they are made imago Dei (in the image of God). However, the belief in the dignity of humanity is not limited to Christianity - in every human society throughout history the killing of innocent people (murder) has been universally condemned.

Yet in contemporary Western society - despite science and medical technology showing beyond doubt the humanity of the tiny person within the womb - the dignity of that life is far too often trumped by an appeal to “choice”.

“Pro-choice” groups use the argument that a woman’s choice to have or not to have a baby (“my body, my choice”, and so on) is sacrosanct, therefore even though some may admit the humanity of the unborn baby, that humanity is made redundant by the woman’s choice to have and to hold - or not.

If choice is what is really important, why don’t we let the baby decide whether he or she should be killed?

In the womb, the human person is defenceless and relies totally on his or her mother for nourishment and shelter. The baby cannot defend him or herself - so killing via a suction catheter, the “morning after pill”, or RU486 isn’t actually offering real choice.

Once a baby is born, it takes a few years before he or she can communicate with language and fully understand his or her surroundings. If choice is what really, really matters, a seriously “pro-choice” society would advocate for a mother to have the baby, wait until she can have a rational discussion with her son or daughter, and see then whether the child wants to be killed.

My guess is that once the baby is born all desire on behalf of the mother for such “choice” to be exercised will immediately disappear, making any need for that “do you want to be killed?” discussion redundant.

The fact is, the fundamental question that senators debating the Bill must ask and answer is: when does human life begin?

The value and dignity we accord to human life is the crux of the RU486 (and hence the abortion) issue. Despite the fact that every medical textbook worth its name states that human life begins at conception, there is a notable reluctance on behalf of the medical fraternity and politicians to acknowledge this reality.

The problem this raises is that when issues such as RU486 come up, arguments from both sides begin from different premises and so resolution is inevitably reached via “mob rule” rather than honest discussion, debate and concern for the life, health and wellbeing of child and mother.

If there is to be honest debate on the Senate floor, this question must be addressed. It should then lead to questions regarding the value and dignity of human life, and whether we ought to end an innocent human life.

Australia’s most famous election slogan was Whitlam’s “It’s Time” campaign. Perhaps “it’s time” we cut with emotive jargon, vague definitions and nebulous appeals to choice, and addressed the basic question that too many people are reluctant to tackle: when does human life begin?