Over all, I found Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin Company: 2006), to be an enjoyable and well reasoned work of philosophy. However, I must take exception to his argument about abortion. I am by no means a theist and I find no value in the religious stance against abortion. The argument that life begins at conception is an argument I feel no need to debate. If true, then nature (and therefore, by theistic standards, God) is a mass murderer, given the fact that millions upon millions of conceived eggs have been flushed from life with the menstrual cycle throughout history. If each was a life, and incidentally had a soul, then not only is the theists’ god a mass murderer, he’s also quite cruel, given the fact that these souls were not baptized and will be spending eternity in hell-fire damnation (in Catholicism). From my atheistic stance, however, I have a different standard of determining where life begins and it is not birth. I also have a different standard of determining what is “good” and what is not. By the end of this series of posts I hope to make it clear that the issue of abortion is not something that either side has a perfect logical “victory” on, and because of that, if for no other reason, rational debate must continue in a very public way.
Before we can broach the discussion of abortion we must first establish the “moral standards” by which we determine the rightness or the wrongness of an action. This topic has been debated for millenniums and I don’t suspect that I will make any breakthroughs in this quick post, but let us use the secular standards set out by Dawkins and Sam Harris. Dawkins states, “A consequentialist or utilitarian…weigh[s] up suffering,” (p. 293). Dawkins is referring specifically to the issue of abortion, but I believe this standard can be extracted to a general set of morals. Sam Harris’ standard of happiness is set out in End of Faith (W.W. Norton & Company: 2004), “A rational approach to ethics becomes possible once we realize that questions of right and wrong are really questions about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures. If we are in a position to affect the happiness or suffering of others, we have ethical responsibilities toward them—and many of these responsibilities are so grave as to become matters of civil and criminal law,” (p.170-1). These standards fit very nicely together. With these in place we can now begin to address various issues. Each can be extrapolated into various situations, but that is not my goal here, so in an admittedly over-simplified way, it is logical to state that the following cause suffering: murder, rape, theft, molestation, assault, disease, etc. One will be quick to note that disease is not something that one generally does to another, but given the issues of biological weapons and the potentials for stem cell research to end suffering from many diseases, I include it here. Each of these “actions,” causing suffering, are by definition “wrong” by the standards we have set above. But, as I said, these actions can, indeed must, be extrapolated in order to fully understand their implications. After all, is this not why the US makes distinctions in murder? So let us take murder on in particular.
By stating “murder”— rather than say… “thou shall not kill”— I am drawing an immediate distinction between actions that are in self-defense and those that are not. So, if your life is threatened and you take action to protect yourself (or others), I don’t consider that murder. I also define murder as being against another human being. As we approach the question of abortion then, we must ask two questions if we are to determine whether or not abortion is murder: 1) is the fetus a sentient human life, and 2) is someone else’s life in jeopardy? It follows that: a) if the fetus is a sentient human life and its birth does not jeopardize anyone else’s life, its abortion is murder, b) if the fetus is not a sentient human life, regardless of whether or not another human is jeopardized by its birth, abortion is not murder, c) if the fetus is a sentient human life whose birth jeopardizes another human being’s life, its abortion is not murder. These are the questions that I believe are best suited to determine if abortion is murder and therefore “wrong.” If you fall too far on either side of this fence, you either have already answered these questions unequivocally or have made up your mind regardless of these considerations.
To those Pro-Choicers…
who have already marked birth as the ultimate distinction of life, no need to read further, but you maybe should ask yourself the question, “why is birth the distinction?” The usual answers will be: 1) before that the child is dependent upon the mother’s body for survival, 2) the child is not fully developed and is therefore not fully human, and 3) the child is part of the mother’s body. Each and every one of these is an absolutist view point that is as flawed and stubborn as the worst religion has to offer. Addressing points one and two: pre-mature babies are born into the world and survive without being dependent upon the mother’s body. One may argue at this point that being pre-mature is sign that it has been born, and surely it is, but what is the difference between a pre-mature baby and fully mature baby? Could not a pre-mature baby survive without the mother’s body? If so, would that not establish that it is most definitely a sentient life? If it is a sentient life, is it not capable of suffering? Is it not a separate consciousness? At what point then does a fetus become a sentient life? Certainly there are plenty of children that were born a month early, even two months, and have survived outside the mother’s body. What then of late term abortions? Point three: how does one determine that the fetus is a part of the mother’s body? The standard certainly cannot be that the fetus is dependent upon the mother, as that case is far from cut and dry. What other criteria can be used? I think that a huge distinction is the question of sentience. When a late-term fetus is aborted, does it feel pain? Is that pain distinct from the mother? It seems that when the fetus has a separate and functional nervous system, the fetus is a separate, sentient life.
Here, Dawkins steps in, “Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.) Does the pregnant woman, or her family, suffer if she does not have an abortion? Very possibly so; and, in any case, given that the embryo lacks a nervous system, shouldn’t the mother’s well-developed nervous system have the choice,” (p. 293).
It is disappointing that Dawkins make such easily dismissed arguments as these. First, to compare the suffering of a human embryo to that of a cow in a slaughterhouse may be a legitimate comparison, but it is not one that can be long sustained in the discussion of abortion. Why? First, “embryo” refers to the early stages of pregnancy. Dawkins, who has rightly established that labels are important (see his problem with the label “Christian Child” p. 337-8), uses only early term abortions for his argument. Abortion is not a black and white issue. The suffering of an embryo may not be as great as that of a cow in a slaughterhouse. However, the suffering of a fetus may well be greater, especially considering the difference in some techniques used for abortion versus slaughter.
Second, to dismiss the suffering of a human as compared to an animal is an illegitimate standard. I realize that above I said that it may be legitimate, but here I say that it most definitely is not. Now, Dawkins can make the argument that the embryo is not human, but once the embryo/fetus gains consciousness and is capable of suffering, what is it if it is not human? If it is not human, what distinguishes it from being human? Birth? As I argued above, such a distinction is a massive over-simplification. If, however, we do establish that the fetus is a human life, then do we not establish that it deserves special consideration above and beyond other life forms? If you say it should not, then you necessarily must be vegetarian or vegan (do vegans eat aborted chickens?). In fact, you should be a Jain. Or, I suppose, you could be a cannibal. The best way to answer the question of whether or not human life deserves special consideration is to answer the question raised in the following dilemma (a variation on the Marc Hauser moral dilemmas used in Dawkins book on pages 222 through 226):
There is a runaway train with one person on it. Down the tracks is a wall that the train will slam into, killing that person, unless the train is stopped somehow. A large object can stop the train. You have a lever that will divert the track to a side track on which stands a cow. The cow will be killed if you divert the train. Let’s even go so far as to say that the cow will suffer terribly from being hit by the train. Would you divert the train and save the one human life by taking the life of the cow? Or would you let the human die? My hunch is that the vast majority of people will save the human. It seems obvious that we will value that life which most closely resembles our own. I imagine the cow would not hesitate at saving a cow and killing a human, if such a reversal were possible. If you are one who believes that the suffering of a sentient human fetus is not as important as that of a cow, you have no need to read further.
So ultimately, the most legitimate question that Dawkins raises is the comparison of potential suffering of the mother versus that of the embryo/fetus. I will come back to this question after I address the religious moralists.
But first…
While I believe Dawkins argument is not intended to be a fully fleshed out argument about the issue of abortion, the fact that he brings it up and then dismisses it so casually and condescendingly is problematic and is gasoline on an already raging fire. He is not paying the issue its due respect. When he goes on to discuss those who murder abortion doctors, he further alienates secular and religious “pro-lifers” because of how he lumps them all together with murders. This is not to say that he should not discuss these religious extremists, he should, but the issue of abortion is not intrinsically an issue of religion and faith. Moderate theists pave the way for extreme theists, because of the scriptures that define religion. There is no scripture that defines the debates on abortion. One can be anti-abortion without paving the way for murderers. To not recognize that distinction is as problematic as if I were to not distinguish between Dawkins argument that a cow suffers and the acts of eco-terrorism carried out by some animal-rights and environmental activists.
As for the theists…
If you believe that life begins at conception, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. You should live by your beliefs, but do you have a right to impose those beliefs on others? It is not at all clear that life begins at conception. The process may begin there, but as I mentioned at the start of this article, if conception is life, then God is a mass-murder. If implantation is the beginning of life, then you should not oppose the morning after pill. However, even if implantation occurs, why is this life? The embryo at such a stage have no nervous system. The embryo, therefore, is incapable of suffering. Again, if your values are dictated to you by a Supernatural Being, you can stop reading. For those few who oppose abortion, but kill doctors, your God will not smile on such hypocrisy. Neither will he smile at those who oppose aborting a tiny grouping of cells, but favor executing fully matured convicted murderers. Jesus taught forgiveness after all. Right? I believe it is important to note that an orangutang more closely resembles a fetus than does an early stage embryo.
To those who oppose abortion from a logical stance…
Thank you for joining me. I am opposed to abortion. I believe there may well be some pro-choicers in the room and I believe there are some pro-lifers in the room, as well. Look at that! Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, same room!!! The reason this is so is because many people who are pro-choice are anti-abortion. Now I realize that some pro-lifers will dispute this. If you are one who disputes this, you should probably not be in the room, because you very likely are taking a religious stance here and that, by definition, is not logical. One can be against abortion and still be “pro-choice.” In fact, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice. That’s the amazing thing about this issue! Why is no one stepping in to unite the sides? If one is pro-life, then one may want to see the least number of lives lost. If one is pro-choice, then one may want to allow women the choice to have an abortion, but may also want to eliminate the desire to have an abortion. I cannot stress that enough. Being Pro-Choice does not intrinsically mean that one is “pro-abortion.” If someone were pro-abortion then they wouldn’t have kids, and while there are some like that, they are very, very few and far between. Being Pro-Life is not intrinsically anti-woman; it is pro-fetus or pro-embryo. It is not about the woman. It is about the being that the woman carries.
So here is where I stand on the issue of abortion…
I refuse to accept any of the labels commonly used for this issue. I am not pro-life nor pro-choice nor any of its variants. I am anti-suffering. Those laws and policies should be in place which create and allow for the least amount of suffering. Dawkins brought up the suffering of the mother and her family, and I think that that should be a consideration with this issue. Pro-Lifers will bring up the suffering of the fetus, and that too should be a consideration with this issue. Ultimately, I am opposed to banning abortion for the same reason that I am opposed to banning guns, it has proven to be ineffective at reducing suffering. It is placebo legislation. Early term abortions on embryos that have no nervous system cause no suffering to the embryo. Women who die having back alley abortions suffer greatly. If the suffering of a woman in an alley is something that you are indifferent too, you probably were indoctrinated by religion, because you cannot make a logically sound argument for why the non-suffering of an embryo justifies the suffering a fully grown woman. As for later abortions…
The best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate the desire for abortion. And the best way to achieve that is through education. Sex education should be well funded for all public schools, and should not be restricted to abstinence only education. That simply doesn’t work. If you actually think it works, then you are not reading the data on the subject and you are not recognizing the effects of the sex-drive. [So here is some data: teen births by state, teen abortions by state. Here is a list of States that decline abstinence-only funding: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. How do they compare to the ones that accept the funding? Well of the states listed above, which do not have an abstinence only system: 2 (Arizona and New Mexico) are in the top ten of teen births and 8 are in the bottom 10. As far as abortions: 3 (NJ, RI, and Washington) are in the top 10 for teen abortions, while 4 are in the bottom 10 for teen abortions. Note that these statistics are the ones listed as of today 2/20/08. Of course, we must keep in mind that some of these states have very recently dropped out, and the statistic don’t tell the whole story. But with that in mind, we should also note that teen pregnancies seem to be on the rise because of these programs.
So the best policies to have in place are the educational policies that are honest. The best way to avoid getting pregnant is abstinence, but it is certainly not the only contraception. The same is true for avoiding disease. That should be taught! Having sex, any sex, vastly increases your risk, but having unprotected sex is far, far more risky. Schools should have condoms, the pill, and the morning after pill readily and freely available to students. This should not be mistaken as a promotion of teen sex. It’s a promotion of safe sex. Those safe sex rules will follow the teens throughout their lives, and will greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies. In addition, groups like Planned Parenthood, which educate people on the risks of pregnancy and distribute contraceptions, should be promoted as a private alternative for people who are afraid to go to the nurse’s office at school. It is of the utmost importance that we recognize that the best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate the desire for abortion.
Some Pro-Lifers have left the room, no doubt, but they will soon be followed by some Pro-Choicers…
While I do not think that first and second trimester abortions should be outlawed for the reasons I mentioned above, I do believe that late-term (i.e. partial-birth) abortions should be illegal, except when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. For those Pro-Choicers who argue that they oppose this ban because of the possible snowball effect such legislation may have, I hope you keep that in mind with other issues, such as gun control. For those who think that the parents should have the option of aborting a mentally or physically unwell child, you should carry this argument to its fullest and most extreme conclusion, which is the question of eugenics. I’m not saying that you are a Nazi for making this argument; I’m just saying that the Nazi made this argument as well… For those who think the late-term fetus is not a sentient life, please re-read the article… slowly…
In the end, regardless of what your position is, I hope that you have at least considered all these possibilities (hopefully even more!) in forming your opinion on the issue of abortion. It is not at all a black and white issue for any thinking, caring individual, and therefore it deserves well-considered debate. When either side makes a caricature (or a villain) of the other, it reveals a stubborn unwillingness to consider the other’s perspective and will likely result in an argument that is narrow-sighted. Intelligent opinions are revealed when we consider all points and make logical decision. Intelligent policies are formed by those who hold intelligent opinions. Progress requires intelligent policies. What opinions we hold are less important than how we arrived at them, but they should all be open to criticism and debate (even mine!).
22 users commented in " Abortion (a secular response to Richard Dawkins) "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThough I had no reason to expect it, it turns out that my stance on abortion is one shared by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
“By placing harmless electrodes on a subject’s head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy–near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this–however alive and active they may be–lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.”
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
[...] Click here to read the FULL ARTICLE [...]
I have the same position you expressed there, it seems. I specially liked the “anti-suffering” label, sounds like one nobody can object to…
[...] of Disillusioned Words posts a convincing humanist argument for being anti-abortion in Abortion (a secular response to Richard Dawkins). He is [...]
Very good points. I advanced similar arguments in my 2005 post “The Question of Sentience”
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/religion/53_the-question-of-sentience_2005.html
In no way is the standard pro-choice line of “abortion is OK up until 5 minutes before birth” logically supportable. Usually, it’s a libertarian self-ownership argument, that the mother owns anything growing inside of her body. That, I argue is normally true, but changes as soon as the fetus gains a measure of sentience.
We need to wait until science puts a finer point on the nature of the fetus’ ability to suffer. That is the dividing line and all arguments are moot until we understand more about when meaningful consciousness develops.
All your arguments about proper sex-ed and contraception are right on target.
I’m startled by some of your terminology here — I basically agree with your stance, but I’d never call myself pro-life! Still, there’s real power in your taking both labels.
It’s worth noting that late-term abortions are rare and usually are for health reasons. I’d still consider banning them, but it’s worth keeping things in perspective.
I don’t see where you argument justifies suffering for the mother at any point. If the fetus is anesthetized, does your objection go away? What amount of health risk/suffering would allow a third trimester abortion, in your view?
Kerlyssa,
Who is trying to justify the suffering of the mother? “If the fetus is anesthetized, does your objection go away?” Well, that is an interesting question. I think the point is about suffering, but also about a separate sentient life. Ask yourself the same question you ask me. If the mother could be anesthetized and then “terminated” would that be OK? Why not? Would it be OK to anesthetize a one day old baby and kill it? Is it OK to kill ANYONE because they have been sedated? I don’t think it is. Your last question has been answered in my article at length.
[...] agree with much of what he has to say about theism, I disagree with his statements on abortion, and have said as much. In doing so I did not have to call him a “fundamental evangelical pro-choicer,” I [...]
My point about anesthesia was that you are using more than suffering for your position on abortion. You are saying that ending a fetus’ potential life is inflicting suffering.
Then you go on to compare aborting the fetus to murdering the mother. Your argument links sentience with the ability to feel pain, and this ’sentience’ with personhood, so why are you now talking about future potential? If abortion is wrong because you are taking the fetus’ future potential from it, why is it more wrong at a later stage than an earlier one?
If I conceded the point and accorded the fetus and mother equal status as citizens/persons, the fetus still could be aborted at any time because no person has the right to the organs of another in our society. It would not be ok to kill the one day old baby because people are given medical intervention in our society as a basic right.
So, as actual pain experienced by the infant is irrelevant to your argument, and you oppose 3rd trimester abortions in all but cases where the mother can be shown to die from carrying to term(how high does the risk have to be?) you are saying that a fetus’ potential life outweighs the mother’s right to be unmaimed, psychologically healthy or just plain child free for economic or social reasons.
Kerlyssa,
Your devotion to being pro-choice has interfered with your reading of my article.
A fetus that has a separate, developed and functioning nervous system is a sentient life that can be said to have a consciousness. Without the use of an anesthetic, that being would suffer physical pain from being killed. A being that is conscious is not a “potential life,” it is a life.
Your statement, “Then you go on to compare aborting the fetus to murdering the mother” is a red herring. I asked you a comparative question. To repeat, I quoted Sam Harris’ statement, “A rational approach to ethics becomes possible once we realize that questions of right and wrong are really questions about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures.”
The word sentient means:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Beings that are sentient can be said to have an independent consciousness. Your question of whether or not it is OK to kill if the consciousness is render unconsciousness is a valid and fair question. But that question must be posed to all consciousnesses. My answer to that question is no. It is not OK to kill by rendering an otherwise conscious being unconscious.
Your claim that “the fetus still could be aborted at any time because no person has the right to the organs of another in our society” I addressed in my original article. Go re-read if you need to.
The following statement clearly demonstrates that you have misread and intentionally misinterpreted my article to fit your dogmatic position:
“you are saying that a fetus’ potential life outweighs the mother’s right to be unmaimed, psychologically healthy or just plain child free for economic or social reasons.”
Again, a sentient life is not a “potential life” it is a is a sentient life. Your use of the word potential is a clever escape route that fundamentally twists my argument to fit your pre-conceived sense of reality and morals. I am not arguing about potential, I am arguing about that which exists in reality. If a fetus is sentient, it is an independent life. No one is saying that the sentient fetus’ “outweighs” the potential suffering of the mother. All I am saying is that the suffering needs to be equally weighed.
Your “child free for economic or social reasons” is flawed because it assumes that the birth of a sentient being will cause more suffering to the mother than the elimination of the fetus would cause to the fetus. Again, if your argument is that rendering the fetus unconscious will eliminate the suffering, the same argument could be made for rendering the mother unconscious and delivering the infant who is then given up for adoption. The adoption part would remove the social and financial suffering that you implicitly claim is more important that the sentient consciousness of a third trimester fetus.
Your argument about the mother being maimed is an attempt to make my argument simply about the question of life. I think that the health risks should all be considered. I am not saying that maiming is OK and if you are honest with yourself, you know that. The equivalent would perhaps be, “is it ok to maimed the fetus, by removing its arms and legs, to make it easier to give birth to?” Or something along those lines, and that is not what I am saying.
Your “psychologically” unhealthy question is a slippery slope argument. What is the psychological suffering a woman would experience by giving birth that she would not suffer from a late term abortion and which also justifies eliminating a sentient life? Are you aware of the process of late term abortions? They are similar to birth, hence why they are called “partial birth abortions” by the pro-lifers.
Kerlyssa, thanks for your comments. Your question about rendering a consciousness unconscious to kill it is interesting and worthy of contemplation. But please don’t twist my argument to better fit the one you want to oppose.
One last point.
You state: “no person has the right to the organs of another in our society.”
But is there a single other example you can think of in which someone attempts to use the organs of another? This is simply a statement that has to do with pregnancy and abortion. For instance, no one would say I have a right to someone else’s liver, because you would have to remove the liver from that person to give it to me and that would mean that that person is lacking a liver. When a fetus uses the mothers body, it is not as if the mother no longer has access to her organs. If your problem is with the mother’s organs being used, why not just induce birth instead of aborting? If the fetus is able to survive without the mother, is that not proof enough for you that it is alive? Do you think that something magical happens upon birth? As the child exits the mother it suddenly, magically, has life breathed into? That’s contrary to all available scientific knowledge. The 3rd trimester fetus is very much alive. In fact, even a first trimester fetus is alive, it just isn’t sentient. To be clear (so my arguments are not twisted), I am not suggesting that inducing birth is a good idea.
At this point, I would have to say that each of us has given our reasoning for the positions we hold and it is up to others to decide for themselves. If you would like to have the last word, you are more than welcome to post whatever refutation you would like.
Again, thanks for your post.
Jeff
[...] as important to me as Humans are. I already mentioned some of this in my prior arguments concerning abortion: The best way to answer the question of whether or not human life deserves special consideration is [...]
[...] the totality of these, is “moral” or “immoral.” For instance, I think that some abortions are indeed wrong and immoral, but I arrived at this opinion through rational debate (in my head and with others). [...]
[...] Abortion (a secular response to Richard Dawkins) [...]
[...] to offer a more complex view of abortion. If you are interested in my full argument on abortion, see this post. Also, it should be noted that I agree that “Nature” is not a foundation for morality. [...]
“But is there a single other example you can think of in which someone attempts to use the organs of another?”
No, and this helps establish the point that there is no legal or moral basis for anyone having any right to use the organs or body of any other person.
“For instance, no one would say I have a right to someone else’s liver, because you would have to remove the liver from that person to give it to me and that would mean that that person is lacking a liver.”
If I remember correctly, it is possible to remove a piece of a liver because livers are very good at regrowing. They filter poisons, so they have to regenerate.
You can also remove a kidney from a person and they will still have a kidney.
“When a fetus uses the mothers body, it is not as if the mother no longer has access to her organs.”
But a lot of extra strain is being put on her organs. You are correct that she is still able to use them, which is why the standard example for these cases is to have a person simply hooked up to your body for several months, not the removal of an organ or of blood. You still have access to your organs, but someone else is using a couple of them as well.
In both types of analogy, we have a normal adult human being which everyone agrees has a right to life. Does this right to life include a right to use your body or your organs against your will? No, everyone agrees that this is not the case. It’s not the case when it entails removing something from your body which you no longer have access to and it’s not the case when it simply entails hooking them up to you for a while.
No one can remove blood from you for the use of others against your will. No one can remove a kidney or piece of liver from you for the use of others against your will. No one can hook you up to another for several months against your will. No one can force you to come to the hospital once a week and force you to act as a living dialysis machine against your will (which is a lot less inconvenient than being hooked up 24/7 or being pregnant).
So if it’s not the case that a normal adult has a right to use your body or organs to any degree and in any way, then it can’t be the case that a fetus has a right to use your body or organs to any degree and in any way. If, however, a fetus has a right to use a woman’s body and organs against her will — if the state has the authority to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will — then some basis for drawing the line at pregnancy alone has to be established. Why should women alone be forced to live according to a different set of rules such that their bodily autonomy can be violated in a manner that would never, ever happen to men?
I understand your points perfectly well and I do think it is the best that the unequivocal, abortion-on-demand, pro-choice position has to offer. However there are still some consideration that are lacking. For one, why is this a case for women and not for men? Because men can’t have babies. The fetus being created is not the result of fetus doing something, it is the result of the mother and father having sex. The pregnancy is simply the result of the functions of the mother’s organs. Therefore, the argument that somehow the fetus is responsible for its “violating” a woman’s right to not have another use its organs is rather absurd. Now one should keep in mind that I don’t think a fetus becomes a sentient being until the third trimester or so. But if we want to take the argument to its extremes it is a question of “Rights.” Does the fetus have a right to life? Does the mother have a right to “bodily autonomy.” Well, I don’t think this is even a question until the fetus is sentient, at which point the question becomes: “is the punishment for using one’s body against one’s will the death penalty?” By the way, in order to be logically consistent you would have to argue that anyone who took blood from another without that person’s permission should be sentenced to death. Abortion is not simply “allowing” the fetus to die, it is killing the fetus. Why not take the fetus out and hook it up to a machine? Why not induce labor and give the fetus a chance to survive? Why not put the fetus on trial? The argument that a fetus is somehow “like an adult” is absurd on both sides of the equation. There is no proper comparison between a fetus (which came to life as a result of the parent’s actions) and a grown adult. The question is simply one of sentience and whether or not there is a “right” to Life for a fetus. This question is irrelevant: “Why should women alone be forced to live according to a different set of rules such that their bodily autonomy can be violated in a manner that would never, ever happen to men?” This is not by any means a “different” set of rules.
Pregnancy is nothing like a grown adult taking your blood, a piece of your liver, your kidney or anything else. The issue is unique and by the third trimester involves two separate sentient beings. The fetus will suffer a loss from being aborted late term, period. That needs to be recognized on the Left as much as the Right needs to recognize that an embryo resembles a paramecium more than it does a fully grown Human.
Therefore, the argument that somehow the fetus is responsible for its “violating” a woman’s right to not have another use its organs is rather absurd.
You’re right, the existence of a fetus is not violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. The violation occurs when a government forces a woman to use her body in a way that explicitly conflicts with her wishes. Many people who may be “pro-life” on a personal level do not want the government determining what they can or cannot do with their bodies, and so are pro-choice politically.
In order to be logically consistent you would have to argue that anyone who took blood from another without that person’s permission should be sentenced to death. Abortion is not simply “allowing” the fetus to die, it is killing the fetus…The fetus will suffer a loss from being aborted late term, period.
No one’s talking about the death penalty. The question is, given that one person will die without another person’s organs, does that give someone the right to use [insert organ here] without permission? Take, for instance, a person with leukemia. Surely, without a transplant, the patient will die. However, especially in the case of a younger patient, a bone marrow transplant might afford the patient decades of life. This seems the best analogy for a fetus. It involves “two sentient beings” and a choice that has only two outcomes: a fairly certain chance at life vs. a clear end of life. So, in this case, would we be willing to force a bone marrow transplant on the appropriate donor? If the donor refuses, and the patient dies because of this choice, did the donor commit murder? For me the answers are “no” and “no.” Abortion is more nuanced than murder.
Let me add that I know that you are approaching this from an anti-suffering stance, and I respect your logic on that. However, I think that having flexible views on human rights violations causes far more suffering in the long run. It is possible that you agree that forced pregnancy is a rights violation, yet you think that a fetus’ potential life is more important than preserving the right to bodily autonomy. In that case, we disagree. Still, I’m interested to hear your opinion.
That’s what makes this a contentious issue. The government is certainly not forcing anyone to use her body this way. It isn’t as if the State somehow impregnated a woman. The government would be protecting the life of the fetus. The government would not be forcing anyone to do anything; it would be restricting what the mother could do to the sentient fetus.
The fact is that in the 3rd trimester the fetus is a sentient being capable of suffering and in many cases capable of surviving outside the womb.
That is exactly what we are talking about.
Again, if you truly believe that this is the distinction, then you should advocate for induced labor and birth in the 3rd trimester since the fetus at this point is often capable of surviving outside of the womb. And, again, this is not a case of “allowing” a fetus to die by depriving it of “unwarranted” use of someone else’s organs. That argument is a red herring. Look at what they do. They kill the fetus. They crush its skull. They cut off its life in a surgery. They don’t just take it out and deprive it of someone’s organs. It isn’t a pretty thought, but that is indeed what happens.
This example is still, and has always been, an inaccurate comparison. Apples and oranges.
If the person has leukemia as a result of someone else’s actions, this would be a more accurate comparison. The fetus is in the 3rd trimester as a result of the mothers actions and/or inactions. Sex was the first action. No abortion for the first 2 trimesters was the inaction. In that time, the fetus became sentient. Why no decision was made to abort the fetus a time prior to the fetus gaining consciousness is beside the point, except if the mother’s life and/or health is at risk. The third action is that of the mother killing the sentient fetus in the 3rd trimester.
Now in the case of someone with leukemia, no one gave the person leukemia. The person with leukemia is not in the position as a result of someone else’s actions. Pregnancy (as I have stated above) is unique. The only comparison that would work would be one in which someone is hooked up to someone else’s body and if they were to be unhooked the first person would then die, get leukemia or whatever. That’s an abstract problem that is fun to think about (perhaps) but has no grounding in reality. In reality the person would have a previous illness that necessitated being hooked up to the other person and once again we come back to apples and oranges of it all. A fetus doesn’t have a “previous illness” other than being conceived– if such is to be considered an “illness”– and brought to the 3rd trimester, as a direct result of another’s actions and inactions, at which point it is a separate sentient being that in many cases is capable of survival outside of the womb. Therefore, crushing its skull and chopping it into pieces (i.e. “aborting” it) is killing it.
This isn’t placing one being above the other in value, as some would accuse, but weighing the lives equally. Would you have the leukemia patient unhooked from the other’s organs or chopped into pieces?
Abortion is more nuanced than murder.
Surely. And so is my argument.
Not only is it possible that I consider forced pregnancy to be a human rights violation, I indeed absolutely think that it is. However, we are not talking about forced pregnancy.
No, I don’t think the fetus’ potential life is more important than bodily autonomy. I think the fetus’ actual life is as significant of a consideration when it has reached the 3rd trimester since (I know I’m redundant) it is a sentient being capable of experiencing pain and loss and capable of surviving (in many cases) outside of the womb. I would say that the bodily autonomy of a sentient fetus should be respected as well.
…………………
I understand that my opinion puts me out of sorts with current “liberal” and “progressive” sentiment, but it seems to me that this position is the most logically consistent. And I feel that I am in good company; I discovered after writing this initial post that Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan came to a similar conclusion for similar reasons.
[...] the totality of these, is “moral” or “immoral.” For instance, I think that some abortions are indeed wrong and immoral, but I arrived at this opinion through rational debate (in my head and with others). [...]
[...] Abortion- I already wrote a very long and detailed post about [...]
Leave A Reply