"Why Be Pro-Life?"

Editor's note. Please send your comments to Daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

One of the great pleasures afforded by the Internet is that, unlike the old days, readers can access stories virtually in real-time. In fact, I can go, say, to Washington Post.com and read a story online even before the newspaper itself reaches my front door.

Likewise, the Internet also makes it easy (as they used to tell us in college) to compare and contrast. In the case of two recent columns, one written by Jonah Goldberg and the other by Bryce Taylor, I will do something slightly different: see the former through the lens of the latter. Goldberg, editor at large for National Review Online, wrote his piece for Tribune Media Services. Taylor, a freshman, wrote his commentary for the Yale Daily News.

The title of Goldberg's column is, "Why Be Pro-Life?" His instincts all point him in the right direction. For example Goldberg understands that arguments on "my body" are silly.

We place restrictions all the time, "from the drugs you can take to the surgeries you can subject yourself to," Goldberg writes. "In other words, the line of personal autonomy is often blurry and narrow."

And he is properly skeptical of Democrats who unload their pro-life convictions the moment they hear the whistle of the Presidential Express. Think of Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, and Al Gore, to name just three.

He concludes by saying he is pro-life, not because he is certain but because he is not. The tie goes to the baby.

Why is he uncertain? Judging by the piece, perhaps because Goldberg gets off on rabbit trails such as ensoulment and consciousness.

He is right that, of course, no pro-lifer says a baby at conception is self-aware. But that hardly settles the question whether we protect the baby--or others who lack "consciousness."

As Bryce Taylor observes, "If we say that [the source of human value and dignity] lies in sentience or consciousness, and that therefore a fetus is not as valuable as a more developed human, then we must follow our logic and concede that there is not much difference between aborting a fetus and killing a newborn child."

This would obviously also apply not only to people with dementia but also to a huge pool of people with lesser or greater cognitive difficulties. It is no accident that the logic of abortion has jumped the age barrier and became a lethal threat to the frail elderly.

Taylor indirectly addresses what appears to be the other biggest hurtle for Goldberg: the unborn, especially very early in his or her developmental journey, don't, if you will, "look like us." Goldberg can easily "see" the child much further along in development, the one who is in the cross-hairs of a partial-birth abortion, but not the same human being earlier in development.

It's an issue of identification, a difficulty which Goldberg shares with many people.

As would any pro-lifer, in his rebuttal to a prior op-ed, Taylor consistently emphasizes the continuity of life. We are human from Day One. The excuses we employ to justify an abortion we would never accept if applied to that same child when she is outside the womb.

Having said that, how can we heighten an awareness of our common humanity, shared from the very beginning to the very end of life

Ultrasounds are already helping people enlarge their moral vision. And ultrasounds are ubiquitous and enormously influential in changing minds.

Earlier this week, appearing on the Late Show With David Letterman, actress Halle Berry talked about the 3-Dimensional ultrasound taken of her baby, now in his or her fourth month. While, in the end, they made a joke, the educational impact prior to the punch line was extraordinary because the discussion was so ordinary, so commonplace.

An enriched understanding of the human community ultimately depends on the kind of moral suasion that appeals to both head and heart. For example, I will never forget the first time I heard someone respond to the objection that a baby doesn't "look human" early in development.

The answer? That's how all of us--including the skeptic--looked at that juncture. That's how any human being looks at, say, eight weeks.

And it is also important to work backwards. The single most effective presentation I have ever witnessed (and cannot find to this day!) was a short video that started with the picture of an older woman, then faded into a photo of a middle age woman, then a young mother, then a teenager, then a toddler, and, finally, an unborn baby.

Energizing this identification process must be the fundamental understanding that we are in this--all of us--together, that none of us must be compelled to jump through hoops to "earn" our status.

As Ryan Anderson observed, writing on the blog of firsthings.org, "[E]very human being–-simply in virtue of his or her humanity-–is the subject of profound worth and intrinsic dignity."

You can read Mr. Goldberg's essay at www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/why_be_prolife.html

And you can read Mr. Taylor's essay at www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21858

Please send your comments and questions to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.