Some Thoughts on Abortion (and Responding To It)
This post is representative of many comments that I've seen lately in response to the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Naturally, this got me thinking about the alleged contradiction in the dominant "pro-life" position.
While my own still-developing view is likely to come out in what follows, my goal for this post is less to set forth my own view than to work through some of the thinking behind it. For the sake of simplicity, it oversimplifies some things and might not be as rigidly cohesive as I might otherwise try to make it. But I hope it will give you some food for thought; in fact, I hope you'll add any comments you might have: Does my reasoning work? Where does it go wrong? What possibilities or considerations would you add? In short, what do you think about the subject?
[Note that '(*1)' indicates footnote 1, etc.]
When it comes to the subject of abortion, the very first question to ask is this: What kind of thing is the unborn? The answer to this question influences everything that follows.
Why is this question important? Imagine a small child coming up behind you and asking, "[Your name], can I kill [or break] this?" How would you respond? Well, before you can answer the question properly, you have to know what "this" is. So you ask, "What is it?" and turn around to look. If it's a spider or a twig, you probably don't mind too much. But if it's the family dog or a fine china plate, you probably don't want it killed or broken.
So when we come to the question of removing a lump of cells from a woman's body and destroying it, we have to know just what that lump of cells is. If the unborn is of little or no value, then abortion is unproblematic. If the unborn has value in itself, then things become more complicated.
If the unborn is just a collection of cells in the mother's body--no different from an organ or tumor--then abortion is no worse than any other invasive surgery.
On the other hand, if the unborn is a human being, distinct from the mother, then abortion is killing. And not just any killing, but premeditated killing of a defenseless person (a good candidate for the word "murder").
Or as one slogan puts it: If the unborn is not human, no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is human, no justification is sufficient (with the possible exception of saving the mother's life).
As I understand it, there are some pretty good scientific and philosophical reasons to think that the unborn is in fact a distinct human being (I might get into those in another post). But for the sake of examining the "pro-life" position, let's just grant that the unborn is a human being. What follows from that?
Well, as I said above, it follows that abortion is the killing of a defenseless human being. So now we have two moral values to consider: the mother's "bodily autonomy" and the child's right to life.(*1) Which is more important? That's a complex question, but let's assume (again for the sake of argument) that life has a greater moral value than bodily autonomy. It follows that the child's right to live is greater than the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body. And since the child hasn't done anything yet, it's hard to see how there could be moral or legal justification for killing it. If that's the case, then abortion is murder and aborters are murderers.
Which brings us to the present question: What should morally responsible people who recognize abortion as murder do about it? If it is indeed the case that millions of babies are murdered every year, do we have any moral obligation to stop it?
This gets us into yet another complicated issue, namely that of defense of others and of self. I'll try to represent the options accurately without going into too much detail.
The most straightforward approach is total pacifism: Violence is not acceptable in any circumstance whatsoever. For the pacifist, the only acceptable way to oppose abortion is "internally," by which I mean working within the society to make abortion illegal, unaccepted, and unnecessary. There might be any number of methods to achieve this, but violence is never among them.
At the other extreme is what I might call vigilante justice: Hurt or kill the would-be attackers before they can hurt or kill you. The "pro-life" vigilante sets out intentionally to kill anyone and everyone who performs abortions. For the sake of defending those who cannot defend themselves, anything goes. Such extremists might even kill or terrorize people seeking abortions, though that seems blatantly counterproductive.
And, of course, there are middle roads: For example, allowing violence in defending against imminent threats but not allowing preemptive attacks. Such an activist might seek to kill only those who perform late-term abortions, or doctors who are about to actually perform an abortion, along with working for internal change.
But moral-action judgments must always include pragmatic considerations. We don't want to feed the homeless rotten food or prevent AIDS with a flesh-eating vaccine. And if abortion is systematic murder, then the moral responsibility of "pro-lifers" is to end the "holocaust" as quickly and efficiently as possible.
If the goal is to prevent as many abortions as possible, then killing individual aborters could be one of the worst ways to achieve that goal. You might save several hundred babies (the ones that particular doctor would have killed) but condemn thousands more to death by "setting back" the work of making abortion illegal and unaccepted.
Even if you could coordinate a mass assassination of every aborter on the planet at once, new aborters would come along, and you'd have to kill them, too. More seriously, this would probably create an atmosphere of fear, anger, hatred, and vengeful desire that would have terrible but unpredictable repercussions. (Imagine armed bands roaming the streets, fighting with each other, the police, and the military.) The life of a child may be more valuable than the autonomy of a mother, but the long-term stability of society could be more important than the lives of millions of babies.(*2) In short, the evil caused by such an act could easily outweigh the good caused by preventing abortions.
Is killing abortionists good? No. Is it more justifiable than abortion itself? Perhaps. Speaking pragmatically (and therefore morally), are there better ways to end the "abortion holocaust"? Almost certainly.(*3)
C. S. Lewis said, "Let us never mistake necessary evils for goods." Taking the "big-picture" view may be the most pragmatically moral approach, but it doesn't do much to help the children that will be killed by abortion today. Perhaps in a fallen world, there are times when there are no "good" choices, only "less evil" ones. Would Jesus have killed Dr. Tiller? I don't know, but I doubt it. But then, God has a way of showing us the options, then giving us what we ask for and letting us deal with the consequences.
If abortion is the killing of an innocent human child, then it is wrong, and no amount of wickedness or ideological inconsistency on the part of "pro-lifers" can change that. But even if you believe that abortion is murder and that violence can be justified when defending the defenseless, it doesn't follow that you're obligated to engage in or condone the killing of abortionists.
--Footnotes--
*1: Of course, if the child is a distinct being, does the mother really have "bodily autonomy" over it?
*2: Though that is by no means obviously true. And even if it were, how many babies is social stability worth? 50? 500,000? 500 million?
*3: Greg Koukl presents the interesting analogy of military sabotage:
Labels: Philosophy/Thinking, Politics
posted by Martinez at 8:50 PM
19 Comments:
This all seems very clearly and logically presented to me (and your WWJD? made me wonder if you had seen this). I think I am left with one question. I take it that you disagree with the assertions in the post you linked that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement is insincere and contradictory. I think you are correct to do so (certainly I find it odd that anyone would suspect these people of insincerity). What I wonder is this: Do you believe that the rhetoric of the movement is guilty of sending mixed messages, and is in some measure at fault when people act on it in this manner?
I ask because you didn't mention how you felt about this aspect of that post, and because I happen to believe that the answer to both parts of the question is "yes." I continue to believe that, although you have done well to answer this particular contradiction charge, the pro-life movement is largely guilty of contradicting itself by failing to live up to its name in vehemently and outspokenly valuing all human life equally. The accusations (false or not) that they face in the wake of a tragedy like this is a logical negative outcome of that failure. I have a few other thoughts on the issue (who doesn't), but this is the most relevant to your post.
Thanks for your response, Jared. I hadn't seen the Onion article; they're in fine form, as usual. ;-)
I have to admit to not being as well-versed in the "pro-life" rhetoric as I probably should be. From what I know of it, I think I agree with the spirit of your sentiments. (In fact, I put "pro-life" in scare-quotes to reflect the very confusion you mention.)
Rather than saying that such rhetoric sends mixed messages, I would say that it sends an incomplete (and therefore confusing) message; namely, it emphasizes the value of the life of the unborn without providing the context of the value of all human life. That is, it fails to make clear that the unborn are not valuable by virtue of being unborn but by virtue of being human.
When case against abortion lacks this context, you get an unbalanced and distorted view of the moral landscape, and that view becomes open to a number of contradictory interpretations. In this case, it may be that certain people waive their right to life by their actions (e.g., terrorism, murder, rape), but that's a facet of a broad issue that needs to be dealt with holistically, as I have tried to do.
"Pro-life" leaders should lead the whole way, from pointing out the problem to suggesting methods to address it. If their thinking leads them to conclude that aborters should be executed, then they should be clear and unashamed about that. If, on the other hand, their thinking suggests that such executions are wrong, the leaders need to be clear about that, including explaining why that is so.
This is a very interesting topic. I thought I might share some perspective from my point of view; some things that I have been considering lately...some stemming from my line of work in foster/adoptions, and some just from my own thoughts.
Now, I realize that this could sound very simplistic, but keep in mind that I do understand the details that are involved in my suggestion. Firstly, I've heard it said before that if Christians (I'll hereafter refer to us as believers) really want to do something about abortion, they need to open their homes to the children that women have, but perhaps don't want (or never wanted, or never planned...or were the results of incest, rape, what have you). Though this is only one facet of the many things that could (and should) be done to address this issue, I think it is a somewhat overlooked aspect when believers talk about what to do about abortion. I suppose it is because I am involved with families daily who have welcomed several children into their home, whether to care for them for a day or the rest of their life...but it is so crucial. I know that believers talk about, politically, whether we are “pro-life” or not, but what does that mean, to be “pro-life”? What are we going to do? It seems to me that murdering an abortion doctor is akin to aborting a child; when I read that I thought, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” It’s like, a life for a life. It doesn’t seem to really convey that we value life at all; on the contrary, it’s as if we’re saying that this child is better than that doctor who’s making his living doing something that others are begging him (and paying him) to do. However, aside from all of this, I think we need to address the heart of the issue…while so many are focused on killing or getting rid of those who actually perform abortions, they would not have jobs if women didn't choose to get them. I suppose there will always be a woman out there who will want one, but I think their reasons need to be addressed very openly. Why would they do it? What, in their life, leads them to believe that this is their only option? Though I could never speak for the Lord, I wonder if that's not where Jesus' heart would be as well. He always tended to get to the "soul-ish" part of every issue with the Pharisees and Sadducees who attempted to undermine Him, and always addressed the heart with his disciples. And I think, like the woman at the well, He would get straight to the heart of a woman who is considering killing her unborn child. First, the question is “why?” and I think secondly, we ask, “then what can we do to help you?” I realize that not every family can be a foster or adoptive family, but I do believe its part of a solution that would prevent many abortions. And I have seen the Lord’s amazing work in several of these families! Again, I think this is only once facet of the solution, but perhaps there need to be believers who come alongside struggling pregnant women and who are realistic with them about what it will mean for their child to be adopted by someone else. There should be believers out there who would love her child and who would consider letting her be a part of the child’s life…and who would let her know it.
Lastly, I have always thought it very interesting that if someone kills a pregnant woman, no matter “how pregnant” she is, it is considered a double-homicide. I have not yet been able to understand how the court can consider this the murder of two people and yet it does not consider an abortion the murder of one.
~MJ
Thanks for your comments, MJ. Before I interact with them, I just want to reassert the importance of distinguishing between the moral status of an act and the way we respond to that act. In other words, whether abortion is wrong is a separate issue from what we should do about it (though naturally the two issues are related); even if "pro-lifers" made a habit of killing toddlers, that wouldn't make abortion any less wrong (though it would make "pro-lifers" horrifically inconsistent). You didn't suggest otherwise, but it seems to me that conflating the two issues is the cause of much confusion in the debate, and I want to avoid such confusion as much as possible.
Now, as for your actual comments: I think you are absolutely right. The long-term goal may be to create a society in which abortion is neither wanted nor accepted, but "pro-lifers" ought to have some concern for the babies that will be born in the meantime. And I suspect that showing such practical and tangible concern now will go a long way toward fostering the cultural attitudes we want to create. The distinction I emphasized earlier might hold true, but we humans are not purely intellectual creatures, and we tend to put great stock in "walking the walk."
That said, I think it's both fallacious and silly to say (as some anti-"pro-life"-ers do) that nobody can be consistently "pro-life" unless they adopt as many unwanted babies as they can find. You can recognize the wrongness of abortion even if you're not in a position to personally support foster children. That's where adoption agencies, "crisis pregnancy centers," and similar services come in, and they are well suited to addressing "the heart of the issue." We (or at least I) need to be more active in promoting and supporting such ministries.
Your last paragraph makes a very good point. As another potential conflict (I don't know if I'd say "hypocrisy"), I wonder how many "pro-choice" people would ever consider working at an "alternative-to-abortion" center? After all, many of them say they want abortions to be "rare" (along with "safe" and "legal").
Wow! Firstly, I thought your essay was well written; it was very clear and concise. This topic causes mixed reactions based on an individual's peronal perspective and how the subject has, if at all, affected her/him.
That being said, my response to this will be uniquely mine. I have had experiences with both a pro-abortion facility such as Planned Parenthood, and a Christian-run organization, such as a Pregnancy Counseling Center. There is an extreme difference in how each organization views preganancy and the unborn. **Disclaimer: I realize there are exceptions to every rule, but for arguments' sake I am not dealing with these, therefore making uniform generalizations that I know to be true.
In my opinion, facilities that promote abortion (they probably wouldn't say they promote it, as they may offer a pamphlet on adoption) completely dehumanize the unborn. These facilities have their own rhetoric that help young, scared, or confused women justify the choice of abortion. They never refer to the unborn as a baby, but instead phrases like "tissue mass," insinuating that it is some unwanted growth like cancer that should be cut out. Let's not be remiss in forgetting that abortion is a multi-million dollar business.
Conversely, the alternative-to-abortion centers' goal, I believe, is to distinctly make the unborn child human to the one carrying it. They focus on not only protecting the unborn, but also the emotional and physical health and well-being of the mother. They do not, as sometimes they are accused, just solely care for the unborn. This is evident in there willingness to counsel women who have had abortions and regretted it.
I believe abortion is wrong, just as I believe that murder is wrong because God's law is very clear. Unfortunately, what these "Pro-life" extremists have done is discredit all of those who are anti-abortion and value all life. Just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer went astray by plotting to murder Hitler, so have the "Pro-lifers" who are willing to kill abortionists made their goal hypocrisy.
And this is just a caveat, but something that I kept thinking about after the publicized news of Dr. Tilden's murder at church: Where are the church leaders? Why are they not speaking out? Are churches now just orginized religion businesses, like in the days prior to the Reformation? Can people attend and buy "indulgences" and clear themselves of their iniquities (until the next set of abortions)?
How dare we cheapen God's grace and accept blood money as tithes. Woe, that we do not want to be viewed as anythings besides politically correct and acceptiing. Far be it for anyone to "judge" or place accountability for one's actions. This is the society in which we live; this is what we're battling against.
Hopefully this will not be an unwelcome diversion, but I just read this for class tomorrow and I'm starting to think that maybe everyone should just read more poetry. ;)
"To My Unborn Child" by Anthony Thwaite
Nothing is known but that you are
And move under her hand and mine,
Feeding and sleeping, clandestine
Agent and close conspirator.
You mould your own unique design
And grow frail roots nine months in her.
Collision of erratic spores
Moved eyes to bud, fingers to swell
Out of the light, and now he walks
On water, and is miracle.
What you will be the uncertain world
Waits for and watches, nor can make
Provision for each loose mistake
You drop when, far beyond the fold,
The days you pass, the routes you take
Teach you to be shy or bold.
The tent of flesh, the hut of bone
Shelter him on pilgrimage
And blood and water build for him
A flooded road, a shifting bridge.
Not yet real, we make for you
A toy that is reality.
The secret country where you lie
Is far from it, but not less true,
And both are dangerous to the eye
That fears what flesh and fate may do.
Tent, hut and bridge are weak as he
And yet unnumbered travellers
Have spent dark nights encamped in such
Retreats, and trod such paths as hers.
You who will soon step down through blood
To where earth, sky and air combine
To make you neither hers nor mine,
Think: you now stand where many stood
Who, each in his own unique design,
Was weak and strong and bad and good.
And yet these murmurs cannot break
The doors which you alone unbar,
And we who know all this must know
Nothing is known but that you are.
Martinez,
I generally find your reasoning clear and consonant with mine, but I see a weak link here:
On the other hand, if the unborn is a human being, distinct from the mother, then abortion is killing. And not just any killing, but premeditated killing of a defenseless person (a good candidate for the word "murder").
You have just equated the terms "human being" and "person." I am not sure that we can take the equivalence of these terms for granted. Although the public abortion debate (at its rare best) seems to center on the question of "when life begins," I suspect that most participants are actually arguing about when personhood begins. Clearly, a pregnant woman is carrying something that is biologically human, genetically distinct, and alive; the question is whether this creature is a "human being" in the fullest sense, i.e., in the sense of being a human person ... whatever we believe that means when we talk about murder in general.
Of course, you could argue that this distinction doesn't matter -- that it is wrong to kill a distinct human creature in any case, whether or not it is a person in the sense we mean when talking about adults or children. But then that position itself needs to be supported by an additional set of steps in the argument, since "it is wrong to kill an innocent distinct human creature" is probably not obvious to most people as "it is wrong to kill an innocent person." (For example, you might have to consider here the question of whether "brain-dead" adult bodies may be taken off of life support.)
Great poem, Jared; thanks for sharing.
Thanks for weighing in, Wilson: I was wondering whether anyone would comment on that. (I didn't notice the slip when I first wrote it, but when I did I thought I'd leave it in and see what happened.)
You are, of course, absolutely right. We can't take the equivalence for granted, and we need to be clear about whether we're talking about the rights of humans, the rights of persons, or some combination of the two.
(For what it's worth, I don't think there actually is a 1:1 equivalence, because I think that not all persons are human.)
And I think this distinction partly explains why some people do in fact argue that the unborn is not actually human and does not become so until some particular stage of development. That sounds absurd to me, but it's a simple way around the much trickier questions of personhood. (If brain-dead humans are not persons, why not? How much brain activity is required to count as a person? Is there such a thing as a mentally retarded person, or does mental retardation keep one from counting as a "person"? What about motor capabilities? These are rather harder to answer than "When is something a human?", or so it seems to me.)
The reason that this distinction seems absurd to me is because, although I can understand a case that argues that a fetus is not a person, I can't quite wrap my head around side-stepping the fact that said fetus will inevitably become a person if left alone (barring various complications which, of course, would be detectable by a doctor). If we are talking about someone being kept alive by a machine, say, then there would be quality-of-life issues and some idea of the likelihood of that "person" ever regaining sentience. In the case of a fetus, we can tell much more reliably whether it will be born healthy and normal with as good a chance as anyone at having good physical quality of life.
In any case, arguing that killing something that is not yet (but will be) a person is not the same thing as killing a person is technically accurate, but slices ethics/morality a bit fine for my taste. Although, perhaps I'm doing their argument a disservice here. I don't know. It just seems like the difference between (and perhaps this analogy will seem crass) deciding whether or not to throw out an empty old computer case and deciding whether or not to throw away the brand-new computer you just ordered without even taking it out of the box.
Jared, I suppose my main difficulty with this argument, leaving aside the tricky word "inevitably" --
although I can understand a case that argues that a fetus is not a person, I can't quite wrap my head around side-stepping the fact that said fetus will inevitably become a person if left alone
-- is that I can't think of a good analogy to test the idea. I can't think of another example of becoming-a-person, in order to examine whether we ordinarily consider the person-to-be as having the right to develop.
I don't think your computer analogy works; the computer is already fully developed in the box, and in any case you can't claim that the computer has a right to be used, only that ordering it and then throwing it away is poor financial planning. Surely you wouldn't say that somebody else should force me to use the new computer I've bought if I change my mind about it?
I suspect, furthermore, that your argument could be extended to ban all forms of contraception as well. The natural thing for a fetus is to develop into a person; likewise, the natural thing for a sperm is to try to wiggle into an egg. (Untold trillions of sperm cells never succeed, of course, just as millions of pregnancies abort spontaneously.) But most of us consider the sperm not a future-half-person, but rather just a certain kind of cell with no rights against the body it comes from or the body it enters. (I leave aside the official Catholic position on this matter for the sake of preventing a hopeless derail in the conversation.)
In any case, if the fetus (as you are willing to consider allowing) is not yet a person, then we are setting the rights of a person-to-be against the rights of a current person. Because the mother's status is clear. We might still be able to say, on a sort of natural law basis, that it would be morally wrong to kill the person-to-be -- just as we might be able to say that it is morally wrong to waste a perfectly good computer. But in that case, we probably could not claim to be talking about "murder" or any other recognized violation of personal rights. So on what grounds would we deny the mother the legal right to make a medical decision about her own person?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, I did qualify "inevitably" (although perhaps I ought to have just left it out) . . . but barring various medical complications, a pregnancy will result in a person if it is not terminated, no?
You're right about the computer analogy . . . I tacked it on rather hurriedly. I had thought of saying something like "cancelling your computer order when it is half-finished on the assembly line," but that seemed odd . . . which should have been a clue. In any case, my intent was simply to illustrate the senselessness of the one situation vs. the other, but you got that.
You're probably right about the extension of my argument, but as you also point out, only an infinitesimally small percentage of sperm can ever possibly result in a successful pregnancy, even without contraception. Perhaps one possible distinction is that one would never know whether any given use of contraception were actually preventing what would otherwise have resulted in a pregnancy, nor is any contraceptive 100% effective. Abortion involves both knowledge and certainty. You don't get one unless you know that you are already pregnant, and that action will definitely result in termination. Of course, my understanding of the rhetoric surrounding the process is that it allows the woman involved to construct a certain ignorance about the reality of what is taking place. This strikes me, whether the rhetoric be true or false, as something of a psychological necessity. One would not want to be thinking in terms of the rhetoric of the pro-life camp (i.e. "I am killing my own child").
In any case, you're absolutely right about the tricky legality of deciding whether to extend rights to an undeveloped fetus. Would you say that it is on that tricky ground that abortion has built its solid legal foundation? Would it be fair to characterize the values of pro-choice as centering on freedom and American jurisprudence rather than on (in a larger sense) ethics and morality?
I think one problem here is that we don't have (or at least haven't provided) a solid definition of "person." Is "personhood" the kind of quality that can be gained by something that doesn't have it, or lost by something that does? Does it make sense to talk about a non-personal human?
I haven't done serious reading on the subject, but it seems to me that the simpler and more natural thing is to say that personhood is an intrinsic quality that develops in a manner similar to physical development. If an infant boy is male despite being incapable of sexual reproduction, perhaps a human fetus is a person despite being incapable of things like complex rational thought (assuming that it is in fact incapable).
But the fact that we can debate this coherently shows the importance of doing so, rather than taking it for granted.
The following seems relevant to all of this:
http://thinklings.org/posts/the-death-of-emmies-baby
Consulting my copy of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Martinez, I find the following claim about what philosophers have tended to say about personhood lately:
Personhood has been thought to involve various traits, including (moral) agency; reason or rationality; language, or the cognitive skills language may support (such as intentionality and self-consciousness); and ability to enter into suitable relationships with other persons (viewed as members of a self-defining group). Buber emphasized the difference between the I-It relationship holding between oneself and an object, and the I-Thou relationship, which holds between oneself and another person (who can be addressed). Dennett has construed persons in terms of the "intentional stance," which involves explaining another's behavior in terms of beliefs, desires, intentions, etc.
That's the bulk of the entry. Anyway, it's consistent with that I hear from a friend studying philosophy here; he complains bitterly that many philosophers would say that his son (a six-year-old who is autistic and barely verbal) is not a person.
As for your question, Jared --
Would it be fair to characterize the values of pro-choice as centering on freedom and American jurisprudence rather than on (in a larger sense) ethics and morality?
-- I think that's right in a sense,
but remember that the question of freedom is a moral question. Should the public impose its decisions on a woman and her body? Feminists answer "no" with a palpable sense of righteous indignation. But I do think that for many pro-choicers, the question of the moral status of the fetus just seems too uncertain to be a sound basis for law. What the law can know is that a woman shouldn't have to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be.
Let me see if I can clarify a little based on my experiences up here. ... My many pro-choice friends fall into many different, sometimes contradictory, but frequently overlapping groups.
[Continued in the next post]
A: Some seem not to care much about the whole question of fetal life and status. They figure a woman's autonomy is nonnegotiable in any case, and they bridle at any suggestion that the woman must defer to this intruder just because it would die if expelled. (They might agree with Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous essay "A Defense of Abortion": ultimately, the fetus has no right to live in the woman's body, whatever the fetus may be ontologically.) It's hard to tell how many of my friends fall into this category, but some seem to.
B: Some are repulsed by the idea of abortion happening after (generally) the second trimester, but not before. What they think happens at six months to make a difference I haven't actually ascertained, but I imagine it mostly has something to do with the level of fetal brain development. Some members of this group are clearly willing to consider prohibiting abortion after this moment. But others are not, because they fall into either group A (above) or group D (below).
C: One foreign woman told me, "If you really believed the fetus is a person, well, that's the end of the debate, isn't it?"* But she didn't think that most Republicans were being ingenuous about believing that.** And she clearly didn't believe it herself; she seemed to find the idea fantastic. So for her, the answer was clear: the fetus is not a person, so it has no moral or legal claim against the woman. Other pro-choice acquaintances have also frequently expressed the conviction that the pro-life position is, at the end of the day, about sex, religious demagoguery, or both. These people may be aware of the personhood issue, but they don't worry about it much because they don't think it's the real motivation for pro-choice politics.
D: But in the end, and getting back around to your question, I know of many people who just don't think that the US government is competent to decide the personhood issue. They don't see a definitive answer coming from scientists or philosophers on the question. The only really certain experts seem to be speaking from religious conviction. So they want the decision left to mothers and doctors. This is basically the position of Barack Obama, who called the question of when a baby gets human rights "above my pay grade."
I sometimes suspect that rationale D is growing, and rationale A is shrinking, in the American public mind. But that's just a dim impression that probably results more from rhetorical canniness on the part of pro-choice politicians than from anything else. I have to say that the most adamant pro-choice women I've spoken with seem pretty much to embrace position A, even when they're willing to bolster it with arguments from the other three groups. Position D is more likely to be heard from pro-choice men, in my experience. Which makes sense.
-----
*As I've noted in section A, many other pro-choicers would disagree strongly with her about this.
** There is evidence for her view, I think. For one thing, I find it suspicious that so many politicians, and also so many respondents to polls in the public at large, want restrictions on abortion but want to make exceptions for rape and incest. I can't see a good way to hold that position if you really believe in fetal human rights as opposed to some other reason not to abort.
Jade, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is indeed interesting to note the differences in rhetoric that the different kinds of centers employ. Such differences are understandable, and that's part of why I think it's so important to seek clarity and truth through discussions like this one.
I did want to comment on your comparison with Bonhoeffer. It's hard to avoid comparisons with the Nazis when debaters use the word “holocaust” to describe the abortion industry, and I think there are important parallels here. In particular, both cases involve the same fundamental question: "Can we be morally justified in killing another person for the sake of preventing the deaths of other people?"
There are also important differences: contrast the organization and long-term planning of Hitler’s would-be assassins with the disorganization and nearsightedness of extreme anti-abortionists. But on the whole, I think the comparison is a good one for helping us to focus on the moral issues at hand.
Another interesting (and possibly even more inflammatory) comparison is between the abortion industry and ancient pagan practices of infant sacrifice. Worshipers of Baal, Molech, and other deities would literally sacrifice their children for the sake of ensuring success in war, bountiful harvests, long life, and any number of things. In effect, they sacrificed their children for the sake of prosperity and convenience.
Today, some women have abortions because they don't want babies to interfere with their schooling, their careers, or their lives in general: They abort for the sake of prosperity and convenience.
Of course, many women have abortions because of medical concerns, and the connection between the abortion and the prosperity/convenience isn't nearly as explicit as that between the sacrifice and the deific appeasement. But just like we have to consider consequences when we judge moral acts, we have to consider motives, as well. If killing unborn babies to ease a financial burden is acceptable, can we kill toddlers for the same reason?
But of course, now we're back to the first question: Just what is the unborn? (I told you it was important!)
(And Sharpton, thanks for the link; I'll have a response when I've had a chance to read and consider it further.)
Wilson, I started writing my comment before yours showed up, and I don't have time to properly contribute. But I will say that I agree with you about rape- and incest-based exceptions. If the fetus is indeed a person, it seems odd to say that a fetus born of rape is less of a person. In that case, the only abortion I can imagine being justified is to save the life of the mother, and even that's a bit iffy.
Post a Comment
<< Home