Equality And The March For Life
By DONALD DeMARCO
The theme for the recent January March for Life was “equality.” This word is one of the most important in our language, redolent as it is with moral implication. Unfortunately, it is egregiously misunderstood. Using “equality” as a theme is of great strategic importance for two reasons. The first is to challenge the use of the word “equality” as it is commonly employed in the secular world. In this regard equality of humanity is denied to the human unborn. The second is to recognize that the unborn child is equal in humanity with human beings who have been born. Pro-lifers were marching in behalf of a just understanding of equality.
There are four arguments commonly put forth to deny the essential humanity of the unborn. The first has to do with size — after all, the unborn, especially at the early stage, is quite small. At the zygote stage it is minuscule. But size is an irrelevant factor. We do not ascribe humanity to a 200 pound person and deny it to one who is only two pounds. Humanity does not increase with size. Nor does it shrink with dieting. A six-foot person is not more human than one who is a mere three-feet tall. Size and height are not factors that go into determining one’s humanity.
A second argument holds that level of development distinguishes the humanity of those who are born from the absence of humanity in those who are still in the womb. This, it is asserted, that because of their lack of development, the unborn and those who have been born are radically unequal. Yet, according to the common consensus, at child who is four is equally human in comparison to an adult who is 40. Human beings age without becoming new species. Therefore, level of development is irrelevant determining who is and who is not a human being.
Environment is also used to deny equality in humanity to the unborn. The fetus resides in his mother’s uterus. Nonetheless, we all reside in one kind of environment or another. This point has been strongly emphasized by environmentalists who are deeply concerned about climate. Not does our environment affect our humanity when we are passengers in a plane, a ship, or an automobile. Astronauts did not experience any change in their humanity when they traveled to the moon.
Finally, an argument from degree of dependency is offered to refute the equal humanity of the unborn. This argument is also specious since no one enjoys a life of total independence. The unborn child is highly dependent on its mother, but so is the mother dependent on her health and a variety of external factors and circumstances. A person who is hospitalized may be highly dependent on a staff of doctors, nurses, and medical equipment.
Dependence is a matter of degree. We are all dependent in one way or another.
Professor Stephen Schwartz, in his book, The Moral Question of Abortion, has provided a handy acronym that summarizes these four points: SLED. Altogether, his study is a comprehensive, calm, and cogent refutation of the pro-abortionist claim that equality in humanity does not apply to the human unborn.
It is ironic that the secular, and politically correct world, although it professes to embrace equality (along with diversity and inclusivity) does not understand its amplitude. The unborn child takes his place as an equal member of the human race. Furthermore, if diversity is to be honored, the unborn, in all of his distinctiveness, should be welcomed. In addition, inclusivity should certainly include the unborn. The new morality based on the trinity of “equity, diversity, and inclusivity” is a program that has no firm basis and actually rejects what it should embrace.
Proponents of this charade do not believe what they profess. Hypocrisy is the word reserved for those who do not practice what they preach. However, something can be said for the hypocrite since he is paying tribute to virtue of integrity. But it is another thing not even to believe what one professes. This is simply the vice of dishonesty which is extended to insisting that same-sex marriages and traditional marriages are equal.
Champions of the French Revolution trumpeted the trinity of liberté, égalité, and fraternité. These high-sounding words, however, did not square with either the guillotine or the Napoleonic Wars. An old rural parish priest in France had a better idea. He inscribed a three-word replacement over the door of his rectory: vérité, humilité, paternité.
The truth is needed for liberty to flourish, humility is needed to keep men from feeling superior to each other, and paternity is needed since it both precedes and unites brotherhood. This priest was wiser than his government.
We are all equal — born and unborn — in humanity. We are unequal in endowment and attainment. It is a tragic misfortune that the unborn is not included under the canopy of equality, while people struggle desperately to achieve an impossible economic equality. Mortimer Adler has remarked, in his book, Six Great Ideas, that, concerning economic equality for everyone, “a magic wand would be needed not only to bring it into existence, but also to make it endure. No one has ever worked out a plan whereby, short of magic, this extreme form of economic equality might become feasible.”
We would live in much a better world if we could better understand the true meaning of equality. Then we would apply it where it belongs and refrain from applying it where it does not belong.
- + + (Dr. Donald DeMarco is professor emeritus, St. Jerome’s University, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College. He is a regular columnist for St. Austin Review and is the author of 41 books. He is a former corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy of Life. Some of his latest books, The 12 Supporting Pillars of the Culture of Life and Why They Are Crumbling, Glimmers of Hope in a Darkening World, and Restoring Philosophy and Returning to Common Sense are posted on amazon.com. His most recent book is Let Us Not Despair. He and his wife, Mary, have five children and 13 grandchildren.)