This article looks at the argument that it's inconsistent to support abortion while opposing other 'legal' activities that result in people's deaths.
This article looks at the argument that it's inconsistent to support abortion while opposing other 'legal' activities that result in people's deaths.
Some writers argue that it is inconsistent to support abortion if you oppose capital punishment, weapons of mass destruction, and so on.
Respect for the dignity of life, they say, should apply to all life - the right to life can't be divided up, but should be presented as 'a consistent ethic of life.'
In an article written in 1980, Mary Meehan argued that if many people on the left of society were consistent in their compassion for the weak and helpless, and their opposition to exploitation they would oppose abortion.
She wrote:
... We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" - the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war...
It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak and the poor.
The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient.
The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves. And that instinct is absolutely sound. It's what keeps the human proposition going.
Mary Meehan, 1980
Meehan made several specific points:
BBC © 2014The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.