It is unfortunate that the issue of the right to life has been defined by the controversy surrounding abortion. The focus on abortion puts pro-lifers at a rhetorical disadvantage. The pro-lifer is said to defend the right to life, in contrast to poor-choicers, who defend the right to choice, the right to exercise the most fundamental of human characteristics, free will. There is no denying that the right to life should be regarded as superior to the alleged right to choose. However, in the public discourse, a human life is considered a thing, not a person. We pro-lifers are perceived as being pro-thing, rather than pro-person.
The predominant liberalism of the day is centred on the person and his individual volition. His life is perceived to be something distinct from his person; so much so that the liberal believes that he is not doing something bad to his self when he attempts to end his own life and dispose of it as he wills.
Pro-lifers, therefore, are not perceived to be championing an oppressed population. They are felt to be arguing for a thing called life for individuals whose social status is ambiguous at best. Poor-choicers benefit by being able to depict us as stern moralists waging a relentless crusade for a thing, in callous disregard for women's lives. This is one reason why we are losing the rhetorical battle.
It is important to carry on the campaign for unborn rights on a level that transcends merely rhetoric. But the nature of political struggle is such that perceptions do matter. We must win public opinion in order to obtain equal status for the unborn. Human nature's propensity to conformism compels people to identify with those who have gained political ascendancy. The ambivalence of the public about abortion favours the poor-choice side, because they are the ones in control. The only way out of this situation is to change the dynamic of the debate. So long as we are portrayed as legalistic Pharisees defending a thing, we will always have to overcome our image to spread our message, and the plight of the unborn child will remain moot.
To counter the negative perception of pro-lifers, and advance our cause in the public discourse, I propose that we begin to identify ourselves not only as anti-abortion or pro-life, but first and foremost as unborn rights activists. Our goal and motto should be: Equality for the Unborn.
Raising the spectre of equality for the unborn child does two things. First, it casts us in the mould of defenders of people. No longer would we perceived to be defending an arid concept; we would be defending a marginalized group. People are more willing to sympathize with the underdog. Secondly, the emphasis on equality re-defines the parameters of the controversy. The abortion debate as it is played out cannot accommodate any consideration of the unborn child. It is about the morality of an operation. It is a conflict between free will and the supremacy of a thing called life. When the spectre of unborn equality is raised, no longer can the public avoid the difficult issue. The question must be raised: is the unborn child an equal? Often, when such questions are raised on controversial issues, there is a sense of inevitable acceptance of an affirmative answer.
Radical poor-choicers do not like this debate. Officially, they want the answer to remain ambiguous so as to accommodate as many moderates as possible. However, their protestations seem hollow, as the law has provided an answer at their instigation. The only consensus they accept is that a wanted unborn child is valuable, thereby making desirability, an external attribution, the primary source of his worth. These affirmations will only create a cognitive dissonance in the public at large. In the past twenty years, the media have stressed the importance of self-esteem as an essential part of mental health. Self-esteem is supposedly based on the intrinsic worth of a human being, and completely independent of the opinion of others. The public will surely ask themselves: if an adult's sense of personal value should be based solely on his own intrinsic worth, why should an unborn child's value depend on someone else's volition?
Naturally, it will take time for the term "unborn rights activist" to seep into the public consciousness. However, if we are to win the battle for unborn rights, we must re-define the parameters of the debate. It's not a bad thing to call oneself pro-life. It is only insufficient. Just like it is insufficient to think of pro-lifers as anti-abortion. If we consider ourselves defenders of the unborn, surely we are defending the right to life. Emphasizing the personhood of the unborn in our own discourse can only advance our cause.