If a child is a human being, then it’s not okay to kill it for any reason. But if the child is NOT a human being, then no reason needs to be given.

The idea that it could be okay to kill a baby in one situation – but not okay to kill an identical baby in another, different situation – this is incoherent to me.

It’s like saying there are acceptable and unacceptable reasons for killing a baby. But that makes no sense: there are no acceptable reasons for killing a baby. The only argument that makes it okay to kill the baby is “because it isn’t a baby yet”.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where someone causes a woman to go into labor prematurely, and due to extraordinary and advanced technology, the hospital is able to deliver a premature baby live. But the mother doesn’t want the baby, so she snaps its neck. This would be murder, but if it’s legal to kill this baby when it is in the womb, you have a situation where identical creatures are human and not human, depending not on traits of the creature but on the setting where the creature is found. This violates everything we claim to believe about how things are properly classified, and I believe it’s a powerful argument against the idea of “choice” (that is, the idea that a child is human or not-human depending not upon the child’s traits, or lack thereof, but rather on the mother’s “choice” – if she wants the baby, that magically “makes” it human somehow).

In the same way, saying that there is a difference between abortion for gender selection vs. abortion for any other purpose is just the same: it suggests that one is a crime and the other is not. To me this is another instance of classifying something based, not on what it is or isn’t, but on what we want it to be. You can’t classify things that way and be consistent with how we defined “reality” in other contexts..

I think contextually, though, “symbolic legislation” for abortion is exactly what the pro-life community doesn’t need. Those who don’t share our views on abortion won’t take this symbol as a substantial claim on our side. In the event of a debate between the warring sides, all we’ll be told is that “all of your laws are symbolic anyway. They don’t really mean anything.” Many on the pro-choice side of the debate already think the pro-life argument is inherently ridiculous; more ammunition shouldn’t be fed to them.

The critical issue of the pro-life debate is convincing those who don’t believe the fetus is a human being of our belief. Pro-choicers don’t “like” abortion; they merely don’t think that the fetus is life and, as a result, value the mother’s ability to choose what to do with her womb over whatever this thing is in the womb. Even the most staunch pro-choicer can’t overlook the evidence of the psychological issues faced by some women who undergo abortion (many who underwent the procedure as pro-choicers). Thus, our goal shouldn’t be to put out flimsy, “symbolic” legislation that won’t convince anyone that the fetus is uncontestably a human life. Some may find our opinions “extreme” by trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the implication of the pro-life argument is that the fetus is a life, and thus to take that life is unjust. A claim that serious doesn’t need “symbolic” legislation. It needs something greater.

I agree with you, pentamom, in that “symbolic” is not necessary a derogatory term. Symbols can actually be quite beneficial to a movement needing momentum. I just think that the pro-life lobby has gotten the proper momentum but is not using it in the right manner.

That’s very true, but that actually raises a question: do symbols matter? I submit that unless the symbol is somehow counter-productive to something substantial, “purely symbolic” is no reason not to pursue it.

The lack of such legislation could also be construed as a symbol of sorts — which symbol do we want?

Of course, ideally, we’d have no need for this particular symbol because the law that symbolizes that all human life is legally protected would be in place. However, that not being on the table at the moment, maybe it does matter which currently available symbols we choose.

I just don’t understand why people must assume that because we’re trying to protect life, that must mean we hate women. I don’t believe that’s the case, as I value the life of the woman (or man) in the womb as well.

What woman in America would honestly admit, “I’m having this abortion because I want a boy”?