Right to Life versus Right to Choose

The Press has recently covered a local gathering of a Right to Life group and, also, proposed legislation for Idaho to fly the flag at half-mast one day each year as a memorial for aborted fetuses. Both activities are statements of the right value of preservation of life.

Interesting how the pro-life and women’s-right-to-choose groups line up opposite the typical conservative and liberal positions. The conservative stance is usually to keep government out of the affairs of private citizens, while the liberal seeks to use government to be active in promoting the public good. The former takes the perspective of advocating for the unborn, while the latter promotes the right of the individual to make decisions without government interference.

Both positions are myopic in scope. If we take into consideration the best outcomes for the fetus as well as the mother-to-be, then many other factors must be brought to bear to align with spiritual or religious values invoked by the right-to-life movement. Merely advocating for the fetus to take its first breath as a newborn leaves the entire lifespan to circumstances beyond the control of the infant.

The highest regard should be extended to adoptive parents who can nurture the child’s development. If the mother is homeless, addicted or not mature enough to provide for the needs of the child, either adoption or supports for the mother are needed. As indicated in the first book of the Bible, Cain’s denial of being “his brother’s keeper” was cited as contrary to God’s Laws. How do we follow the injunction to serve as our brother’s keeper?

The hierarchy of needs of both the mother and the child must be met for the best keeping of both. They both need food and shelter such are offered by homeless shelters. To sustain those needs the mother may need treatment for addiction, education, job training, parenting classes and supports to break from abusive relationships. Locally, the Union Gospel Mission attempts to meet those needs. If not adopted at birth, the needs of children are addressed through foster care or children’s homes, but generally when it is determined the child’s needs have not been met adequately and the child has experienced trauma.

Also, the societal investments to compensate for children who may be compromised by either toxic exposure in the uterus or neglect of developmental needs requires additional educational resources, medical treatments, pre-school and special education. “Correctional facilities” have been expanding and commanding ever more financial resources for decades. The inmates of these facilities are replete with family pathology.

To break intergenerational patterns, many interventions and supports need to be in place to ensure the child has the physical, social/emotional and mental development to recognize or be receptive to adopting the values of religious principles or even responsible citizenship.

The questions to be posed for right-to-life advocates: Are you an adoptive parent? If not, do you support agencies such as medical services, women’s shelters, child-development programs, job training and addiction treatment? Do you donate to agencies that provide for infants and mothers? Do you support funding for such programs?

The question for women’s rights advocates: What can be done to help women prepare for childbearing? What societal or spiritual values are lacking that would make procreation a dedication of parenting for the sacred responsibility for nurturing a soul?

Christian principles and the tenets of all major religious teachings posit that we are in fact “our brothers’ keepers.” That responsibility suggests we care for others from their first breath until they have taken their last breath.

• • •

Douglas R. Wells is a Hayden resident.