(Note: I am starting toward the end of the essay and leaving out a lot of preliminary stuff; to read the whole thing,
click here.)
The arguments of the anti-choice people have nothing to do with compassion and nothing, really, to do with life. The more rabid "right to life" people would cheerfully sacrifice the lives of women to prevent abortions. And has been pointed out many times, often these same people are pro-death penalty (there are exceptions) and the nuttier among them advocate the murder of abortion providers.
If you peel back the top surface layer of the abortion argument, you'd see that we're not arguing about saving babies. We're arguing about controlling women.
(examples and some other stuff snipped)
But we can go further. We can peel back the layer of fear and loathing of women to reveal something even more primitive, and this takes us back to Terri Schiavo.
... What is "life" versus "a life"? Cells cultured in a petrie dish might be "life," but not "a life." Terri Schiavo has life, but without a brain cortex, does she have "a life"? Or is the body identified as Terri Schiavo now just a jumbled assemblage of neurons and protoplasm, and no more an individual than the petrie dish "life"?
The brain science guys say that consciousness (or self-awareness, or sentience, or whatever you want to call it) does not reside in any particular place in the brain. Rather, as best I understand it, consciousness is a by-product of brain activity. Brain waves and firing neurons form a sort of matrix of "I."
This is a difficult thing to grasp. We all want to believe that "I" am a tangible thing, hence a persistent belief in souls. It's a scary thought to think that "I" might be just some electrochemical by-product. And perhaps people who are genuinely terrified of such things are the same people who want to believe Terri Schiavo can still have "a life," or that a blastocyst must be preserved at all costs. But let's face facts.
Until we can let go of our fears of annihilation and sex and Other, we are not free to be compassionate. We're just marching around with self-protective agendas and ideologies. But once we get real, we can see that body without a brain is not "a life" and should be allowed a peaceful death. And we can see that forcing a very young woman to give birth to a doomed baby is cruel and bestial.
Of course, the Buddha explained the same thing 25 centuries ago. So I'm not holding my breath.
But if what I'm saying makes any sense to you at all, please consider ways in which we can take claims of compassion away from the ideologues and frame the public discourse so that it reflects scientific fact, and not fear.