Widely heralded as an intensely philosophical, very "real" analysis of humanity and its problems, Battlestar Galactica is one of the only science fiction television shows that ever drew mainstream attention. And to some extent, I agree with the critics that heap praise upon the series. Battlestar is generally very satisfying to watch, with compelling characters and a plot so intricate that you never quite know who's on which side. And, admittedly, the show does an excellent job of addressing social issues without smacking its viewers in the face with an agenda.
That is, until the abortion episode.
Here's the long story short: Sharon is a cylon, a bad-guy robot. She and Helo, a human, conceive a child (before he knows that she's a cylon). Since the cylons are hell-bent on destroying the human race, a hybrid baby would undoubtedly pose a serious security threat. When the powers that be discover Sharon is pregnant, they decide to terminate the pregnancy in order to protect the fleet.
The only character who shows any reservations regarding the abortion is Sarah Porter, a representative from Gemenon, a religious faction equivalent to Christian creationists. Porter is unsympathetically portrayed as an uneducated, totally irrational religious fanatic. It is considered preposterous that anyone would object to abortion, so she is written off as unreasonable.
With the Bible-thumping (or "sacred scroll-thumping," as the case might be) lunatic out of the way, the consensus is quite clear: abort.
In the end, the baby is allowed to live, but only because of a blanket abortion ban intended to keep the dwindling human race, now short of 50,000 souls, afloat. The President announces this new law to the press with tears in her eyes, selflessly defying her own beliefs to protect the greater good. The orchestral music swells, the camera pans out dramatically, and we are clearly supposed to be filled with pride and respect for the fleet's fearless leader.
In the very next episode when the child is born, security concerns must again be addressed. And everyone is horrified that one might even consider killing the child.
In its quest to analyze and call judgment on social issues, Battlestar inadvertently revealed the hypocrisy of pro-choice philosophy.
The concept that a child is not really a "child" until birth is totally unfounded. Is the word "baby" defined as a young human, with the condition that it has been born? No. Does morality suddenly kick in the moment a baby's head pops through the birth canal? No. Does a pregnant woman say that a cluster of cells are multiplying in her belly? No, she is "with child." She is "having a baby."
Doctor Zero wrote that abortion supporters, particularly young men, "find it easy to dismiss the entire issue by talking about 'a woman’s right to choose,' which simultaneously allows them to sound enlightened… and lets them off the hook for doing any serious thinking, or defending a morally serious but difficult position."
The Declaration of Independence defines a human being's natural rights, rights which are inherent just for being a human: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Never mind the "right to privacy" or the "right to choose" or the "right of a woman to control her body." A child is a child, whether it has been born yet or not. To kill an unborn child, or to condone such a procedure, is a shameless act of disrespect for human life. By committing an abortion, you are destroying a human soul and denying an innocent child the right to live.
This country cannot and will not live up to its professed assurance of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" until abortion is made expressly illegal. There is no excuse for killing a child.
No moral system can survive under the weight of pro-choice hypocrisy.