On Wednesday evening, I joined Matt Edwards for a special edition of Idaho Signal to sound the alarm about Proposition 1, the so-called Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. It was a privilege to share the news of the birth of my sixth child, which happened just the previous day:
The basic premise held by those who believe abortion should be legal is that there is a difference between a fetus in its mother’s womb and a baby who has been born. Yet having watched six pregnancies up close and personally, and having been present for the birth of six beautiful babies, I find that premise absurd. My new baby has the same features he did in our 20-week ultrasound. His little kicks, punches and wiggles are the same movements he’s been making in the womb for months. The heart I can feel beating in his chest when I hold him close is the same one we heard through the Doppler at my wife’s monthly checkups.
He is the same baby he was from the beginning. Yet pro-abortion activists, such as those who support Proposition 1 in Idaho, would draw an arbitrary line and say it would be morally acceptable to kill him before a certain point.
I believe societies can be judged by how they treat their most vulnerable. Are children, infants, and the unborn burdens to be disposed of when inconvenient, or treasures to be cherished? As I said, the argument that a baby is something different, something not fully human, prior to birth is absurd. Sure, an unborn baby is at an earlier stage of development than one who has been born. But right now, at two days old, my youngest son is still not fully developed. If left alone, he would suffer and die—he still relies on my wife for care and nourishment, and will for a long time yet to come. Even my older children cannot fully take care of themselves yet, though they are very independent!
In pagan societies, it was considered morally acceptable to abandon unwanted babies in the wilderness to die. Abortion is just a modern version of this same barbaric practice. The post-Christian West increasingly resembles pagan antiquity when it comes to morals and ethics. The rise of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada is just the latest iteration of this anti-life ideology, as is the push to mutilate healthy bodies in the name of transgenderism.
One of the most common criticisms directed toward those of us who are pro-life is that we only care about babies until they’re born. This is usually accompanied by demands for an expansive welfare state and other government subsidies. It’s a cheap line, of course. Those of us on the right are generally opposed to welfare not because we’re heartless bastards who enjoy watching people suffer, but because we see genuine problems with a system that takes resources from those who work and gives them to those who don’t. I agree with Wayne Hoffman that welfare is soul-crushing, both for recipients who can become accustomed to dependency and for those who are denied the ability to engage in charity of their own accord rather than being forcibly taxed.
The pro-life position is one that recognizes the God-given dignity of every human being rather than seeing them as animals that need to be fed or numbers on a spreadsheet. Maybe there is a place for a social safety net, but it must be limited and temporary, not a multigenerational lifestyle.
At this year’s Idaho GOP Convention, members of the Platform Committee debated whether life begins at conception or fertilization. I honestly don’t know. When does a human soul come into existence? That question is more theological than biological. I do know that when the cells of a father and mother come together, a new human being is created, with its own unique DNA that never before existed in the history of the universe. After just a few weeks, even before some mothers know they are pregnant, a baby’s heart is fluttering. A few weeks later, the baby’s brain is starting to function, and a few weeks after that, nerves carry pain signals to that brain.
Where do you draw the line? I would do so at the earliest practicable point. In the face of uncertainty, I would err on the side of saving life rather than destroying it, especially as medical science continues to push viability earlier and earlier.
I now have six children. Each one of them is some combination of my wife and me, yet each one is unique. Now that each one exists in the world, I cannot imagine them not existing. God willing, all six of my children will live long enough to see the 22nd century—who knows what the world will be like by then? Also God willing, each one will choose to make their home here in Idaho, and by the year 2100, my name will be carried on by hundreds of people who exist because my wife and I chose to have these six children.
What a legacy.
The creation of new life is such a miracle, yet it’s one that happens every day, to the point where we’ve become inured to how amazing it really is. There is a simple heuristic one can use when evaluating potential policies: Does this promote life, or does it promote death? Abortion is perhaps the simplest policy to grade on that metric, because abortion is, by definition, the destruction of a unique and innocent human life.
That is why I call myself pro-life, and why I urge everyone to reject abortion in Idaho and vote no on Proposition 1.
The Gem State Chronicle delivers daily analysis, op-eds, press releases, and Idaho Insider updates — free to your inbox.
Free newsletter · Unsubscribe anytime · View on Substack
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
