Few if any issues today are as likely to inspire division and discord as that of the legal status of abortion.

To those on both sides of the debate it is often perceived as a matter central to human rights, and rightly so. Those on both sides appeal to fundamental ethical principles on which our society is based.

On the one hand, there is the principle that human beings do have a right to continue living (within, of course, certain common sense limitations). In my opinion, Gabriel Marcel expressed the sentiment behind this principle most eloquently when he asserted that we humans possess a trait which he refers to as “presence” which distinguishes us from things, such as tables and toasters. Whether or not one finds merit in the metaphysical musings of this unusual French intellectual, all will agree that human life has a certain intrinsic value, and that no one is entitled to arbitrarily terminate it.

On the other hand, there is the principle that people have a right to decide what happens and what does not happen to their own bodies (within, of course, certain common sense limitations).

No doubt, this is the issue at stake when human rights organizations criticize China for practices such as forced abortions and the extraction of organs from executed criminals for transplantation. This is also the issue at stake in practices like smoking or playing football.

Our society recognizes the right of the individual to do what they want to do with their own body, even if it means the possible destruction of that body.

These principles are at the heart of the debate regarding abortion. We all, I hope, believe that both of these principles have some validity, and also that neither principle should be regarded as an absolute.

A little common ground does exist.

Personally, my conviction is that the first principle has primacy over the second in terms of the morality and legality of abortion.

However, I can think of few things that would bore me more than to argue the case. I simply do not feel that I have anything to write in defense of this position that anyone reading this has not already read or heard elsewhere.

(Of course, if you have some argument or insight which falls on either side of this issue and which you think is a real whiz-bammer, by all means, send it to The Daily. I am by no means trying to discourage debate or dialogue.)

What I am interested in pointing out is that those opposed to legalized abortion need to do a much better job at presenting a consistent ethic which embodies a reverence for human life.

The criticisms made against the “pro-life” movement by those who support a woman’s legal right to have an abortion are all too often to a large extent true. Moralizing about the evil of abortion is empty when it is accompanied by an utter disregard for correcting economic injustices which exist in the world. It is also empty when accompanied by a complete blindness to the inhumanity of the death penalty, not to mention its racist implementation here in the United States.

What I am suggesting is very simple. Those who oppose abortion should consider just how consistent their positions on public policy issues are with their alleged “pro-life” stance.

Let us take, for example, a piece of legislation which was in the news earlier this year regarding funding for Planned Parenthood. This same piece of legislation cuts the funding and power of the National Labor Relations Board. Is it in any way possible to consider this legislative attack upon the rights and protections of workers “pro-life” in nature?

Presenting a consistent position of reverence for human life greatly increases the moral authority of those who oppose legalized abortion.

Tyler Wayne Roach is a senior in philosophy, English and religious studies from Des Moines.