Here I am, minding my own business, innocently trying to get work done when BAM, a distraction hits me in the face. In this case, one of my friends is writing a paper on the ethics involved in taking a side in the debate over abortion. Given that my position is far too complicated to explain in a few sentences, I had no choice but to stop my work and write this, right?
I generally take a minimalist approach to law and order. I firmly believe that it is neither the responsibility nor the right of democratic government to legislate the morality of its citizens. Rather, the responsibility of government is to prevent the violation of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by other citizens or outside forces. Some people might consider the issue of abortion to be a question of the former type, but I think it lies solely in the latter realm.
The issue at hand, in the most general sense, is whether or not it should be legal for a woman to take action intended to prevent their pregnancy from resulting in a birth. The pro-choice argument is essentially that an unborn fetus is a part of the woman who carries it, and thus that she should be able to do what she wishes with her body. The pro-life argument is essentially that an unborn fetus is a distinct human being, and thus that preventing its birth would be tantamount to murder.
Both of these positions are of the form “x is true, therefore y is true”. I think most pro-life people would agree that a woman should be able to do what she wishes with her body, and that most pro-choice people would agree that it should be illegal to deliberately cause the death of a human being. The difference of opinion, then, is not with the conclusion nor the logical structure, but with the premise, the “x” of the argument.
So if we could determine whether an unborn fetus is a part of the mother or an independent human life, we could mostly agree on the conclusion that must be drawn from such a determination. Unfortunately, this is quite a difficult question. The complete process of human life for most people might be considered to start at the separate sperm and egg cells, to continue to the single combined cell, to the implanted combined cell, to the embryo, the fetus, the baby, the child, and finally to an adult.
Clearly, an individual egg does not count as a human life. Otherwise, it would be murder to not at least attempt conception each cycle. Similarly, an adult is obviously a human life. Otherwise, it would be permissible to extinguish life from arbitrary persons at any time. For the intermediate stages, this is a more difficult question to answer. I think the vast majority of people would agree that babies and children constitute human life, but it is possible to imagine a worldview in which a child is not considered a person until they have reached an age of majority.
The debate over abortion relates to those stages that occur between conception and birth. Many people have their own opinions about when exactly a combination of biomatter becomes a person. Some have even used scientific or theological arguments to back up their positions. But I cannot see how anyone could have knowledge of where this line lays. I certainly have no recollection of my pre-childhood, and I cannot think of any type of medical evidence that could convince me either way.
Because of this uncertainty, neither allowing nor disallowing abortions is absolutely appropriate to me. Regardless of which side I choose, there is a chance I am wrong. And regardless of which choice I made, the consequences of being wrong affect the rights of certain people. If I choose to ban abortions and I am wrong, then I have needlessly taken away a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body. If I choose to allow abortions and I am wrong, then I have needlessly taken away every right the unborn child has.
So mathematically, it would seem appropriate to weight each action by the probability that it is wrong and the cost of making that wrong decision, then choose the action that is less risky. I cannot claim to have the slightest idea what the probabilities are that either choice is correct. I can, however, make an approximation of the relative costs of the wrong decision. Suppose we take one of them, the cost of needlessly taking a woman’s rights, and assign it a unit value of 1. Now we need to determine how the cost of taking a life rates against that. I would like to say that the value of life is incomparable to anything else, but we know this is not true. Nevertheless, consider that an aborted fetus will never have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion! Joking aside, the most fundamental right to a person, according to the US Declaration of Independence, is that of life. Thus the cost of taking a life and with it all rights and choices must be very, very high. Therefore, I feel that my stance on this matter MUST be pro-life.
To break the tension of a serious post, here’s a great quote about the difficulty of giving a number for something that is valued very highly:
“Lois may be worth a million dollars to you, but to me, she’s worthless. I love her, Mr. Pewterschmidt.”
There may be people who would agree with my analysis thusfar, but disagree with my conclusion for one of several reasons that I will discuss below.
“What if the pregnancy is a result of rape?” Presumably the underlying concern here is that giving birth to a child conceived in this manner may be extremely emotionally painful for the mother, and that is quite a legitimate concern. But we must again look at the cost analysis. As painful as it might be for the mother to have this experience, I do not feel that such wrong outweighs the wrong of taking an innocent life. The mother certainly does not need to be responsible for raising the child and living with a constant reminder of what happened to her, but she does not gain the right to (potentially) kill to prevent her own suffering.
“What if an abortion would save the mother’s life?” This is more complicated still, as it involves death if a wrong choice is made regardless of what that choice is. Does the law allow a person to kill another innocent person to preserve their own life? Generally, no. But this is certainly an area in which I could envision myself being persuaded that such a thing might be best for all people.
“What if the child would be poor and disadvantaged?” First, adoption is always an option to remove a child from such a situation. But if you took a survey of people who grew up in poor homes asking whether they would prefer to have never existed, I don’t think you would find many affirmatives. Even if many people did wish they had been aborted, that doesn’t allow us to make the choice for someone else.
“What if the child would have some debilitating disease?” As above, I think people should have the choice of whether or not they would like to live with a disease, rather than someone else making this decision for them. Even if a child is predicted to live only a few months, I cannot look at a decision to spare the child this pain by killing them and call it compassion.
“But if it isn’t legal, won’t people just do it unsafely?” This is quite a legitimate concern. As we have been discussing, it is necessary to weigh the cost of banning abortion ( the death of women who attempt illegal abortions ) against the cost of allowing abortion ( the death of children who are aborted ). I am not sure which way this goes, but I think a government can outlaw abortions and make contraception, pre-natal care, and adoption available to all people without being irresponsible.
So there is my opinion on the matter. I know of at least one person who disagrees with my fundamental point, that the personhood of a fetus would imply that its life should be preserved. I would welcome any other opinions, insights, etc.
First, your quote is from Family Guy. Wasn’t it the episode when Lois was wooed by her highschool sweetheart and had a date with him and all that?
Ok, on to serious issues. In a nutshell, I’d have to say that I strongly feel that abortion is a sin. I also feel that certain contraceptives, such as the pill, are abortive and therefore it is wrong to use such contraceptive methods. Furthermore, I’m not sure that I feel any method of contraception, short of abstinence when both parties of the marriage are in agreement, is Biblically right.
I think life starts the moment the sperm and egg meet. It’s the moment that God does something to cause that conjoined entity to become more than the sum of its parts and to begin to grow. Didn’t God say he knit me together in the womb and knew me before I was born? Is abortion bad for the baby? I doubt it. Skip all the turmoil of life and probably get to go straight to heaven–doesn’t sound like a bad deal. Abortion, every time, is bad only for the mother, in my opinion.
My mom had a miscarriage before she had me. A lot of women who have had miscarriages or abortions feel a great deal of pain, regret, and sadness as a result and for many years after the fact. I hear that most mothers have a strong tie to their biological children and vice versa. So, it could be argued, I think, that abortion is much worse than just killing someone you don’t know. It’s killing your own child.
I heard that in Roman times, around the time when Christ walked, some people who didn’t want more children would put the baby out on the steps, and that it was a fairly common practice. If someone came along and took it, fine. If not, it died. I’ve also heard about nurses who have been witness to a new kind of abortion, where extremely premature labor is induced. The baby is literally born and left on the counter to expire, but that if that baby had been helped by modern technology, it could have survived. I think that once you allow abortion, at any stage, you open up a whole lot of other possibilities that logically follow.
I heard a story once about a teenager who gave birth in a bathroom at her prom and left the baby to die there. Why, I wonder, does it seem that everybody gets so outraged about that, but that a majority of those people would have had no problem had she gone to a clinic and had the baby literally torn apart as it was removed from her womb?
I don’t expect the government to cater to the opinions of strongly Biblical Christians. Rather, I expect things to get much worse as time goes on. I see no reason, if abortion is legal, that killing your own child should be illegal. After all, a child’s only claim to life comes through the parent. If you can revoke that right at some point, why not at another?
There are people who wish they had never been born. Sometimes they commit suicide and sometimes they fail. I think if anyone should be allowed to die, it is those people. Why should we protect the right to life over the right to death? What do we do with those people, though? We throw them into mental institutions or jail. We desperately try to dissuade them and as long as we can’t, we keep them under lock and key. Of all the people who would have a better idea of which they would wish for, it would seem those people would have a much better idea than a baby. Yet, others are allowed to indiscriminately make this decision for those babies.
I don’t think it’s something to be protested. I wouldn’t go on a march or boycott a clinic or even sign a petition. Does that sound terrible, given my strong feelings on the subject? I think it is a one-on-one personal battle. In the end, whether abortion is legal or not, the mother will make the decision. I volunteered at a Christian pregnancy center one summer that gave assistance and counseling to women who were considering abortion. I am of the personal opinion that most women, given help, support, encouragement, and a clear idea of what their alternative options are, would much rather see the pregnancy through than have an abortion. If we can at least get help to those women, then all we’re left with are the ones who don’t give a damn. We’re left with the ones who don’t have a second thought about it. I’m sorry, if you don’t even think twice about it, go ahead and kill your baby–it’s on your head and not my problem.
I think Christians who feel strongly about the issue should spend more time and money advertising and supporting these places, not making themselves martyrs or getting people who aren’t even pregnant mad at them. Some Christians, I think, just want to pick fights. I never saw Jesus doing that. The saying goes, ‘you catch more flies with honey than vinegar,’ and I strongly hold to that in most aspects of my life.
If you speak softly to someone who is yelling, they will begin to lower their voice. If you stay calm when someone else is losing their head, they will begin to be comforted. If you have hope and help for someone who is in trouble and hopeless, you can begin to show them the way. I think that’s the most important part of the whole debate.
Comment by Shaina — March 20, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
I think you hit the nail square on the head with the statement that the real issue is where does human life begin. Unfortunately, this is not the issue the courts are concerned with, and definately not the issue that the hard core pro-choice people want to make. While many pro choice are okay with it, they are often of the more moderate nature that is okay with making late term abortions illegal.
The other side of the question is what is the value of life. What is the value of an adult human being? What is the value of a child, what is the value of an elderly man or woman, what is the value of a baby, what is the value of a fetus, what is the value of a sperm? These are the questions that are important. By twisting these I could make arguments in most any direction.
I’ll avoid pre-birth for now. The value of a baby . . . Is this value inherent? Does the baby contribute, does the baby have rational thought, what is it about it that is valuable? I would have to contend that the primary value is the potential. The potential for value, the potential for intelligence. There it is, intelligence. What is it, and why is that what matters? Intelligence is where we find value. At least, that is what I value. If a baby is murdered, who is hurt the most? The baby is obviously hurt, but if they have no intelligence does that matter? Then the next obvious person hurt is the mother, and father. They see potential destroyed. They had an attachment, at the thought the idea.
If you were a parent, what would be harder, a baby who dies right after birth, or a child who dies when they are 8? I would venture to say that it would be much harder for the 8 year old child. Sure you feel that the baby didn’t get a chance, but you had much less invested in them. How much love, and time had you spent on an 8 year old when they die? You knew their personality, their dreams etc. Does that make this view right? I don’t know, but as humans it’s easier to deal with. It’s the same reason it’s easier to accept thousands of random people in africa dieing than it is to accept your neighbors son dieing. It’s what you know.
Now let’s bring this analogy pre birth. The courts have established, and I would agree that if a pregnant woman is attacked and the fetus is killed, the asaultant can be charged with murder (maybe it’s only manslaughter, but I don’t know the details). This is because to the woman the unborn child had value. What if the baby had no value to the woman, is it then still murder?
Well then, by this definition, the value of the unborn baby is up to the mother. But what about the potential. The inherent value in life? How far do you go? When is it human life? Let’s be serious for a second…
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,…
…God get quite irate.
Guess that says it all right there. Or does it? I guess technically I’m catholic, so by the definition just laid out, i’m a murderer.
Obviously I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in much religion honestly. I believe in good and bad, and morality, and the need to not hurt others. I believe that if God exists, he’s benevolent, and if he’s not why would I want to go live in his heaven? I also don’t believe that all sins are equal, and that all wrongs are equal. The murder of a grown man is not the same as the murder of a child, or the murder of an unborn baby. Some are worse than others. As I believe inteligence is extremely important, I view the murder of a baby as brutal, and wrong for the helplessness of the victim, I don’t see it as as big of a loss as murdering an intelligent human. That sad the brutality of the act changes my opinion on it altogether.
Should a mother have a choice? Well, I don’t know… I guess she can decide, I’ll never carry a baby thank god, but who am I to judge? I know if I got a girl pregnant at this point in my life, an abortion would seem a very easy way out. A loophole. Of course there are consequences to pay. But wow would it ever suck to have a baby to look after. Would mean quitting school, getting a job, joining the real world. Which makes contraceptive make a hell of a lot of sense. Even if you think it’s wrong, isn’t it the lesser of two evils?
Which is worse? I agree that erroring on the side of caution is important. I believe human life is valuable. I believe that there exists some point where life becomes more valuable than others. Things like late term abortions shouldn’t be allowed. But the question of a baby with a debilitating disease… What if upon birth the baby’s chance of life is low, and the baby existing will greatly reduce the life the parents could live? The parents then must suffer greatly for it. What would cause less suffering? Putting the baby up for adoption isn’t an option as no one wants to adopt a retarded kid. Is it worth spending the resources required to birth the baby, then the resources needed to attempt to keep it alive? What are the costs? It’s cruel, yes, but how much good could have been done without it? it’s a tradeoff of the nature “is one human dieing worth a billion dollars?” Depends who you are, if you’re that one person then it’s probably not worth it, but that money could otherwise be spent on saving hundreds or thousands of lives. So if the goal is minimizing losses, well you see what I’m getting at.
Hope any of this comment made sense, I spent too long writing it to bother looking over it again.
Comment by Philip Garcia — March 20, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Shaina: Correct show, wrong episode.
Thanks for your comments, although I was hoping to look at this from a purely political standpoint, without any theological arguments. I have a strong opinion on the morality of abortion, and I would never participate in such an act. But those convictions are entirely different from the issue of whether or not I believe it should be legal. To me, that is the much more difficult and interesting question.
I forgot to add another piece of humor for those who are not easily offended.
Comment by chadhogg — March 21, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
I’m not sure after writing it, that I feel comfortable posting my response in the Blogg, so if you want to read it, visit my journal.
Comment by Shaina — March 22, 2006 @ 12:19 am
I have read your thoughts, though not the comments of anyone else, as there is only so much time that I can spend reading the blogg while I am supposed to be working. I offer you this thought, which is the one that always seems to hit me. The very moment of conception, if the cell that has been created by sperm and egg meeting were to be removed from the womb and tested- the DNA of that cell is clearly distinct from both mother and father. If, scientifically, we use DNA to distinguish between people, as each person has their own, unique sequences, the cell, at the instant of conception, can be considered a unique individual. I don’t believe it needs to reach blastula stage, embryo stage, fetus stage, etc, in order to develop “person-hood.” Many argue that that cell can not live outside of the mother’s womb. However, how many parisites exist that cannot survive without another? are they less than alive? I say no.
Laws are such that if I decided to abort an animal fetus, I could be charged with cruelty, but my own child is my decision? I disagree.
I know that in many circumstances, there are health reasons (both physical and emotional) why abortion may be necessary. In many circumstances, adoption is a viable option. In circumstances such as ectopic pregnancies (where the baby implants somewhere other than the uterus) both the baby and mother will definitely die unless the baby is aborted- I agree with the decision… because it isn’t really a descision-but in most others, I don’t.
I’m, obviously, very touchy on this particular subject, having lost a baby not along ago. The experience really cemented my beliefs on this subject… The doctor estimated based on size that our baby died when he was about 9-10 weeks old. At 9 weeks, a baby is considered an embryo, at 10 weeks- a fetus. Would the loss be any less devastating if I knew either way? No! They couldn’t tell us the gender without a DNA test… but with one, they could have told us- this “mass of cells” that has absolutely no secondary sex characteristics yet, was a boy/girl. He/She had his/her own genetic code. He (I honestly believe he was a he) was a child, is a child, and forevermore will be a child. He has a soul, that soul is in heaven, as it never had opportunity to sin. I have had people (many of whom were pro-choice), in attempts to comfort me, tell me that one day, Chris and I will be reunited with our child. I believe this, and the people who say it seem to, too. What do they think happens to aborted babies, then? It is legal to abort babies that develop far further than mine did.
I have no specific consclusion to my thoughts, this was more a free flow of my ideas of the topic… so, I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by Amy — March 23, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Ok, this sounds complicated but I really agree with Amy’s excellent point about DNA. Personally I think the time when one could “justly” even consider killing a baby would be in a case where it is clear that if it stayed the mother would die and thus so would the baby. For example, lets say the mother is found to be with cancer which needs to be treated where the chemotherapy would surely either kill or severely deform the baby, so one is left with the option of treat the cancer in the mother and sacrifice the baby or take the chance that the baby could be born before the cancer kills the mother. But even then chances are if the mother survives long enough to give birth to the baby it will be highly likely that the cancer will be too advanced to successfully treat.
Still I must say that I surprised by Amy’s remark about it being a crime to kill an animal fetus yet its perfectly acceptable to kill a human baby because its an inconvenience. So according to that logic it should be more acceptable while hunting for me to kill and eat a random person on the street instead of a deer or wild pig given the fetus logic. Regardless to any Christian this is clearly backwards in regard to the created order in which Yahweh created the earth with its plants and animals to be ruled over (manage and subdue) by mankind created in His image, yet our current legal system apparently views mere beasts as being of higher value than the Imago Dei.
Comment by John Grebe — March 23, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
Stopping by to offer my viewpoint, as Chad requested. I had a longer comment posted previously, but it seems to have not gone through, so I’ll paraphrase it again here.
I feel that the value of a person’s life is based on the effect that this person has on other people and that an unborn child as such has very little value. Their unique combined DNA sequence is the only thing that could even be used to identify them. I mourn for the loss of people, because their loss impacts the lives of others, in the form of lost relationships. I also mourn the loss of the unborn, because they do have at least one relationship – with the mother – and while that does have value, there’s no better judge of which is more valuable (the relationship with the child, or the well-being of the mother) then the mother herself, and that taking the life of one unborn is justified when the mother deems it so.
Basically, I feel that humans place an unreasonable, arbitrary value on their lives as part of convincing themselves of the human-centrality of the universe, and I object to that as unnecessarily burdening people with the responsibility to preserve that awesome value.
This is not an isolated decision to abortion, but is more how abortion is viewed through my belief system. It’s often hard for me to discuss it, because while many are so passionate about the topic, it doesn’t and won’t ever affect me, and thus my interest is purely intellectual.
Comment by Tim — March 24, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Most would agree that a birthed child is alive and that before conception there is no living child, so the courts chose a middle ground for when abortions are allowed (1st & 2nd term I believe). Given an issue where the people’s opinions are as strongly and evenly divided as this one it seems like the responsible thing to do.
If you’re talking from a “value” standpoint the argument leaves the realm of politics and resides solely in economics. A study I read about recenlty showed that the crime rate dropped off significantly about 15 years after abortion became legal, right around the time those (mostly) lower class children would start breaking the law. I believe a study would find that fewer lower class children and more upper class children would be beneficial for our society. The obvious conclusion is to make abortion legal only for the lower/middle class. This can be our slogan: “If you can’t send your kid to college, kill him.”
Going back to speaking politically a child is not created solely by its mother. I strongly believe that the father’s consent should be necessary to have an abortion. We can amend this to say by raping someone you’ve given up your rights as the child’s father if she’s pregnant etc.
The Catholic beliefs about contraception are just nonsense. Having sex when you know the woman isn’t fertile is a contraceptive measure, it prevents conception, and yet is allowed by Catholics completely arbitrarily.
“any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God” – Pope Pius XI
Comment by Michaluk — April 3, 2006 @ 10:43 am
For some reason the entire last paragraph of my post didn’t go up …
If you’re referencing Onan I think you’re way off course. The church constantly points to Onan and yells “Don’t Masturbate!” I’ve never heard the church try to convince a man to provide heirs to his dead brother by his widow, which is not only included but is the main point of the passage. If that passage was on the SAT’s and you were asked to boil it down to one sentence it would most certainly be “Onan didn’t provide heirs for his brother so God killed him” and not “Onan ejaculated on the ground so God killed him”.
Onan is supposed to do A.
Onan does B and not A.
God kills Onan.
The church needs to take a logic class. They’re saying that God killed Onan because of B, but clearly the only reasonable conclusion is !A+B=!Onan
Comment by Michaluk — April 3, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Michaluk: I think the question is not what value do we place on children, but what do we value? The very mantra of America is that the communal existence is not more important than the personal existence, that each person has a right to live their lives as they choose, being constrained only when they would usurp the rights of others. I don’t see why this should apply to adults but not to unborn children (if an unborn child is a person, which I still contend to be undecidable).
I can’t recall having ever discussed masturbation in the context of the church, but my understanding was that the church interpreted Onan’s sin in the same way you do. Doing a bit of research on the topic for my response, I came across a much more wrongful interpretation of the passage than what you say the church has at http://www.sexinchrist.com/oralsex.html. I want to believe this is a joke, but I fear the author may be quite serious. WARNING: The implications of this page and the remainder of its website are HIGHLY offensive to mainstream Christian thought.
Comment by chadhogg — April 3, 2006 @ 11:32 am
HAHA, thank you Chad for that informational and educational site. Hilarious.
I think the constraints on our freedoms are much more severe than you say. About half of your income will go to the government in the form of different taxes which in theory go toward the “common existence”. In effect a typical person spends half their work life earning for themselves and the other half earning for others. From this measure the communal/individual is about evenly split. Morality/religion aside I think everything in society can accurately be looked at financially, so I think this is a robust measure of where a country’s thinking is.
There are obvious societal benefits to abortion but something about the situation rubs me the wrong way politically. You would get the exact same result, plus innumerable other benefits, by promoting individual responsibility rather than after-the-fact quick fixes. I believe that unwanted pregnancies are simply a symptom of a much larger problem – lack of responsible conduct by a large segment of the population, even those society has deemed “of age” (this crap would never fly with the native Americans).
I do agree that any legal argument boils down to exactly when a person starts existing (and stops existing – pulling the plug, etc.). Since a person can be charged with murder for assaulting a pregnant person and killing the baby, but at the same time a pregnant person can have an abortion it seems like legally the mother gets to decide when the baby becomes a person, which just seems … crazy. Maybe the person can only be charged with murder if its during the 3rd trimester; I’m not sure.
Comment by michaluk — April 4, 2006 @ 10:09 am
[...] “Think of the children” has been a sad but popular political mantra for some time. It is precisely this mindset that I believe causes people to advocate against gay rights. Much as I believe a child’s right to life trumps a mother’s right to choose, some people believe a child’s “right” to be raised by heterosexual parents trumps a homosexual couple’s right to marry. (Note that I would disagree.) The argument would be that children raised by homosexuals would lack the role models necessary for “proper” development. (Presumably, “proper” means heterosexual.) Given the number of children raised by single parents, I don’t put much stock in this argument. One might also argue that officially sanctioned homosexual unions would break stable social institutions, but that is not a good reason to deprive someone of their rights! [...]
Pingback by The Blogg » What’s the deal with the Church and homosexuality? — August 17, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
[...] possible that the above is true, and that we should thus act out of an abundance of caution. See a very old and somewhat embarrassingly written post.) Suppose further that you have every reason to believe that a person is going to perform dozens, [...]
Pingback by The Ethics Of Aborting Abortionists « The Blogg — June 1, 2009 @ 9:25 am