Abortion: Are you willing to bet?
Picking up from where we left off yesterday, I would like to continue my series of posts on the subject of abortion.
For many people, the fundamental question which must be answered in the abortion debate is this: when does human life begin? If the aborted child does, in fact, represent an innocent human life, then abortion must be recognized as immoral.
(Some would disagree with this last statement, but I’d suggest that such people are in the minority and I’ll address their position some other time).
So when does human life begin? Personally, I think it’s clear that life begins at conception. I think that this position can be defended both scientifically and philosophically since, from conception onward, you have a distinct, growing, human organism with its own unique DNA. However, for the sake of this post I’m going to set aside my own position…
Differing Pro-Choice Opinions
You see, not everyone holds to my opinion (I know, who’d have thought it?!). The thing is that among those who would identify themselves as “pro-choice”, there are a vast range of opinions as to when the unborn child can be considered a living human person worthy of protection.
Who’s understanding should we accept? For example, some say that the child is only human after certain organs have formed. Some people point to the moment when the heart starts to beat. Others say the child should only be considered worthy of protection once brainwaves are discernible, and still others withhold protection for the unborn until the child is viable outside of the womb. Still more readily admit that they just don’t know…
Given this cacophony of opinions, we can establish that, among those who identify themselves as pro-choice, there is no consensus as to the moment from which the unborn child should be recognized be a human person and be deemed worthy of protection.
I think the uncertainty on the side of pro-choice advocates is a powerful argument against the legalization of abortion. If one is not sure when life begins, then it must be admitted that there is, at least the possibility, that abortion results in the death of an innocent human person and is therefore immoral.
Demolishing Analogy
Imagine you’re a demolition expert and you have a building to destroy. You have it rigged to blow and you’re pretty sure the building is empty. However, suddenly lots of people rush up to you and shouting that there’s someone in that building. What do you do?
Would you just blow it up? After all, you “think” that there’s nobody inside… Well, no, of course you wouldn’t! You would err on the side of caution. You would leave the building alone until you could have absolutely certainty that your actions wouldn’t be end in the destruction of innocent human life.
This week at the March For Life in Washington DC, thousands of people will be crying out that the “building” isn’t empty and that the innocent lives are at risk.
Now, you may not be convinced by the arguments that pro-life advocates make, but how certain are you of your position? Are you willing to run the risk of being wrong? Why not err on the side of safety? I mean, if you’re wrong, then the consequences are colossal! If you have any doubt, why risk supporting something which, worldwide, kills forty-two million a year?
This is great, RP, and I’m even going to share it, but I really question that 42 million figure you give at the end. This site says it is 1 million per year. Maybe 42 million is the total abortions since 1963?
There are only 300 million people in the US. If 42 million of them had an abortion last year, then 1 out of every 7 men, women, and children had an abortion. That cannot be right.
Oooh, yeah, you’re quite right, good catch. I started writing one thing and then changed my mind mid-sentence. It’s 42 million per year worldwide and 1.37 million in the US.
I’ve updated the article.
Well, if you’re going to hunt for say, deer. And you see something move behind some bushes. Do you shoot before you know that its not a human being walking through the woods? Or do you just shoot hoping its a deer?
Nice analogy 🙂
Hi. Wandering the interwebs brought me here…. Full disclosure — I’m not any form of catholic, and ‘some’ of my ideas about Christianity you might consider to be some combination of deluded/irreverent. On the topic of abortion, I am pro-choice, and at the same time fully accept that it is a morally fraught act. I don’t feel, however, that that makes the social policy decision regarding its legality straightforward. In other words, if we accept that it is in fact the ending of a human life, categorizing it in that way ought not to automatically make it illegal; indeed it simply adds it to the long list of other forms of ‘ending human life’ that we participate in. Social policy on ‘ending human life’ is in fact very nuanced, and in some cases it accepts it completely.
I realize this is a very sensitive subject, and I personally find it very instructive to study how other mighty traditions approach it. It helps remind me that there are other ways to think about these things, some of them a good deal more sophisticated (if I may say so) than many of the debates in the U.S.
Hey David, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
That doesn’t particularly matter with this subject, as it’s not necessary to invoke any religious text or tradition in order to defend the pro-life position.
What about abortion makes you think it’s a morally fraught act? If this is the case, on what basis then should such an act be legal?
Why? It’s illegal to kill a newborn child. Why should it be legal to kill the child a few weeks or months earlier? Do humans have intrinsic value?
I’m afraid I’m not sure to what you’re referring to here. What other items appear on this “long list”? In what way is social policy on ending human life nuanced? I would suggest it’s pretty simple – we don’t kill innocent humans.
Christianity has always rejected abortion. A First Century document called “The Didache” mentions it when speaking of “The Way of Death” and, instead exhorts its readers to choose “The Way of Life”.
It is only within the last few years that some Christian denominations have accepted abortion to some degree. The Catholic Church, however, stands firm with the preceding 2,000 years of Christians in rejecting it.
I can certainly agree with that. If I were to recommend one book to you, I’d suggest “Persuasive Pro-Life” by Trent Horn. It has a low price, it’s not long, very accessible and has air-tight logic.
I’m not certain how to make the comments ‘in-line’ on your blog, so apologies ahead of time.
I think abortion is a morally fraught act because it is the termination of a process that under most circumstances results in a new human. There is agreement within the catholic church (at least as I understand it) at what point that new human exists, but there is not a broad consensus in the U.S., the west, or the world.
But even without a precise (or even general) definition on when the fetus is person vs not yet a person, as far as I know ‘all’ societies and traditions and times recognize that a pregnancy is something special. Perhaps a less incendiary way to discuss this particular point is to look at how various societies treat miscarriages. The closer to the point of conception, the less ‘weight’ given to the event. The closer to full term the more the mourning resembles an actual funeral.
Later in my post I note that society has a nuanced view towards ‘ending human life’. I spoke of it in an active way — somebody doing something to end a life. If we consider it in a passive way (as in, we cannot identify a human agent behind it), the example above of miscarriages serves as a good example of this nuance. The U.S. has a very meagre repertoire of ritual and tradition, so it is hard to recognize here, but native american, central and south american indian, all manner of Asian cultures, not to mention Africa have rich traditions for this. In many, it is not only miscarriages (passive), but also abortions (woman actively terminating a pregnancy) that are subjected to the same rituals.
But we don’t even need to search for such subtle examples of nuance in ending human life. Here are a couple of obvious ones:
We send drones to far away countries that bomb wedding parties.
We drop atomic bomb(s!) and kill several hundred thousand civilians.
The local police shoot in the back an unarmed man in his own back yard (a recent event in a city near me).
An elderly person feels threatened by someone and shoots him. (ditto)
None of these events resulted in any legal consequences. In all cases the ‘perpetrators’ were found to have not violated any laws. This is what I meant by a ‘long list’ of forms of ‘ending human life’.
I didn’t know that Christianity has always rejected abortion, but in my defense I am not well acquainted with it. When I mentioned other mighty traditions of the world, I was thinking of the non-Christian ones.
You can make quotations by using the HTML blockquote tag
This may be why it may be difficult for both sides of the abortion debate to come to terms. You have proposed a definition for a human being — human parents with human dna. But, this is not universally accepted. Without any numbers at hand as I type this, I suspect that most cultures around the world would not put an embryo in the category of human being.
Not bad, but it doesn’t result in a human being. It kills an existing human being. That’s the name we give to a living organism with human parents and its own human DNA. The entire purpose of abortion is to stop this growing human being from making it out alive.
This is not a “faith” question, this is a scientific question. Embryology books have said this for years.
I don’t see what natural death has to do with the purposeful crushing of an infant’s skull. Grown adults die of “natural causes” all the time, but we still make murder illegal.
I’ve not heard of any such rituals, but even if they were widespread, what would that prove? It was a “ritual” in ancient Rome to take take unwanted babies (often girls) and leave them by the Tiber, either to die of exposure, eaten by animals or taken by slave traders. What would such traditions teach us about the value of human life?
The purposeful killing of innocents is evil, plain and simple. Do you agree? I think you do. If so, why would you still be pro-choice? What could be more innocent or helpless than an unborn child?
That’s the biological definition. What other definition is there?
Hi: I’m not much good at running, in-line ‘conversations’ on the web, so I think I’d like to restate in one go what prompted me to reply to your series.
1) I do not think there is agreement in society (neither the u.s. nor the west in general) as to when a human life begins. Some hold the position that it is at the point of conception. Others do not. The premise that aborting an embryo is ending a human life is, judging by the divide of pro-con abortion, not overwhelmingly accepted. To use an analogy, I think many people would NOT agree with the following statements: Breaking a freshly laid egg (that has been fertilized by a rooster) is ‘ending a chicken life’. Or, crushing a newly germinated oak acorn is ‘ending an oak life’. Many (most? All?) would agree it is ‘ending life’ or ‘ending a life process’ or something like that. But based on my observance of the debate surrounding abortion, I feel pretty confident in saying that there is not general agreement in society that destroying a newly formed embryo is the same as ‘ending a human life’.
2) There is a nuanced view of the taking of human life in the U.S. In some cases it is dealt with severely, and in other cases there are no legal or civil consequences at all. Most nevertheless agree it is a morally fraught act. I gave some examples above of acts that have been or often are completely ignored.
It appears to me that opponents of abortion have several important hurdles to pass if they are going to succeed in significantly changing how society views and deals with abortion. One is to convince most people that embryo=human. Another is to propose consequences that will gain wide acceptance for people that perform, abet, and undergo abortions. I mentioned a couple of examples of nuanced views of taking human life. Where will abortion fall in that spectrum? Will an abortion at 5 months be dealt with more harshly than a ‘morning after pill’? How? Will the maintenance manager at an invitro clinic that has a cooling system failure that results in the loss of several thousand embryos be sentenced to multiple life prison sentences for his part in the death of thousands? Why not?
I realize that the present form of society vis-à-vis abortion is deeply abhorrent to many. I have considered under what conditions I would be open to supporting a ban on abortion, and I was surprised at what I came up with: While I don’t have numbers at hand, I suspect that the total dead (the majority of whom were non-combatants) from wars we have prosecuted in the last 20 years in far off lands exceeds the number of abortions. When we devote the same energy and resources to education, infrastructure, support for families, support for single mothers, support for children, support for parents, etc. THEN I will support very tight restrictions on abortion, but not before. In other words, we, as a society, must put our money where our mouth is – our actions must directly reflect our stated values. That is my personal quid pro quo.
That’s not a problem, but it would help move things forward if, rather than simply restating what you believe, you tackle the arguments presented in the articles and respond to the questions which have been asked. To make it clearer, in this response I have put all the major questions in a bold font.
Let’s assume that this is true. What would that prove? Once upon a time, there was universal agreement that the world was flat. However, that did not make it so. In fact, even today we have people who still assert that the earth is not round!
Biology is most certainly on the side of the pro-life position with regards to this question. Can you point me to an embryology book which denies that a life begins at conception?
We also have to ask why others hold an alternative opinion. Is it due to the scientific evidence (if so, what evidence?), or could there be more personal, emotional issues at play?
If you are unwilling to accept that life begins at conception, you must then answer this question: when does life begin? How many weeks after conception? How about a week before birth? At birth itself? A week after birth? When the child speaks his first word? When the child becomes a toddler? Where do we draw the line? How small must the child be in order for it to be okay to kill her? Now, you might say you’re not sure…but this is not a question about which we can remain agnostic when it makes the difference between life and death of millions. A line must be draw somewhere and the reasoning for it presented. We can then look at whether or not that reasoning has a firm foundation.
Firstly, what percentage of people have to be pro-life in order for this argument to be discarded? As I pointed out earlier, even today a worryingly large number of people deny that the earth is a globe. Does that mean we have to say that the jury is still out on this question?
Secondly, if there is indeed uncertainty, why would we choose to err on the side which could potentially be encouraging genocide? This was the argument I make in this very article on which you are commenting… Imagine I am out hunting with a friend and I’m about to shoot what I think to be an animal in the bushes and my friend cries out “Don’t shoot! It’s actually a child!”. What should I do? Should I err on the side of safety? Or should I risk potentially killing an innocent human life?
If an egg contains a growing chicken and you stab it with a knife, you will kill the chicken growing inside. The same thing happens to a child in an abortion.
We often talk about accidentally killing a house plant. This is a perfectly accurate description of what we’ve done! If we remove the plant from the earth, it’ll die. If we make its environment toxic, it’ll die. If we don’t protect it from violent trauma, it’ll die. The same thing happens to a child in an abortion.
I also address a related argument to these kinds of comparisons here.
In ancient Rome it was perfectly reasonable for a Roman father to kill his born children. Other societies thought this was abominable. Because of this disagreement, does it mean the killing children is morally unclear? Just because some people hold a contrary opinion, does that mean that there is no answer? Or does it just mean that there are a number of people who hold an incorrect view on an issue?
In the 18th Century, it was not clear to those in power whether or not African slaves were really people and worthy of life and liberty. Did that change the moral nature of slavery just because some people thought it was okay? (Incidentally, how would you conclusively show that Africans are, in fact, humans? Would a DNA test be sufficient proof? If so, why isn’t this sufficient proof to demonstrate that the creature in a woman’s womb is also human?)
Again, I come back to simple biology that you’d find in any high school science book. If it is a human organism with its own unique human DNA given to it by its parents, then it’s human. If it’s growing then it’s alive. If you wish to challenge these definitions, then please provide alternative definitions to “human” and “alive”. Then we can see if there is an objective, rational basis for these alternative definitions.
You did give examples and I addressed them all previously. Can you answer this: is it wrong to purposefully kill innocent human beings? Yes or no?
Science! This is not even in dispute! As I pointed out before, the term “embryo” is a word like “toddler” or “teenager”. It simply denotes a stage of development in an animal, in this case a human being. An embryo in an elephant’s womb is a young elephant! An embryo in a dog’s womb is a young dog! If the fetus in the womb is not human, what is it?
These questions are all immaterial if abortion is not wrong! If it is indeed like just having your appendix removed, then the point is moot. In fact, other than the cost to society, there would be no real reason to even want abortion to be “rare”. But to answer you question, we’d apply the same set of legal principals we currently apply to born humans. It is wrong for a mother to kill her toddler, but extenuating circumstances (e.g. post-partum depression) can lesson her culpability. However, those who would provide services to kill her toddler for her in cold blood, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Finally, you’re speaking as though we live in a society where it has always been legal to kill your children. We used to be a pro-life society… Actually, even today, the unborn’s humanity is recognized in the law in certain cases. For example, if a man kills a pregnant woman (and thereby also her unborn child), he can be charged with two deaths, not just one. Doesn’t it seem crazy that this would be illegal, yet that same mother could have been on here way to Planned Parenthood to have them kill her child in a perfectly legal manner? It appears that we live in a society which thinks a human being only has worth if he is loved and wanted.
I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect. Admittedly, I didn’t spend very long looking, but I found this article which claims that the USA has killed more Than 20 Million people in 37 “Victim Nations” since World War II (1945). In contrast, there have been 60 million abortions in the USA since the Roe vs. Wade (1970), and that number goes up by an additional 1.4 million each year. Assuming the estimate of foreign casualties is correct, that’s 300% more in 65% of the time.
I completely agree with you that there should be better support for young families in society. However, I find the logic here rather troubling…
You are saying that it’s okay to kill an innocent unborn child IF society isn’t providing a certain (unspecified) level of support. Either abortion is wrong or it’s not. One injustice isn’t made morally licit just because of another injustice.
But let’s say a woman has a two year old. If society doesn’t provide sufficient support for mothers with toddlers (such as free health insurance, free child care etc), would that mother be justified in killing her toddler? I hope you would say “No”. However…the logic you’ve just presented would be in favour of it.
I agree that “our actions must directly reflect our stated values”. Don’t most people profess that the innocent and vulnerable should be protected? Yet we allow for the dismemberment of the most innocent and most vulnerable human beings on the planet. That seems like an even greater inconsistency. As Mother Teresa said when she received the World Peace prize “[abortion] is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left but for me to kill you and you kill me?”.
Finally, you are presenting a false dilemma. How would you respond if I said I wouldn’t do anything about human sex trafficking until the governments of the world started addressing the care of the environment in a more serious way so that, once we eradicate human trafficking, we’ll have a safe world in which these liberated women could live? I imagine you’d simply ask: “Why can’t we do both?”
Hi: I’m thinking through all your questions and comments, trying to understand better what my position is. It has been instructive — I’ll be back posting more thoughts soon. thanks, david
Great stuff 🙂
What do you think of my questions?
Hi: Thanks for all the questions. I’ve thought through my post and assertions, and also read a bit more carefully to see if indeed there are any significant differences in the major spiritual traditions as regards life and when it begins. I found in fact none. So, as regards all the questions below (snipped from above), I won’t address them because I accept that, as far as we can say, human life begins at conception.
Can you point me to an embryology book which denies that a life begins at conception?
Is it due to the scientific evidence (if so, what evidence?), or could there be more personal, emotional issues at play?
When does life begin?
Where do we draw the line?
Is it wrong to purposefully kill innocent human beings? Yes or no?
If the fetus in the womb is not human, what is it?
I think morally we are in agreement (let me know if not).
So, what happens now? Ought we outlaw abortion completely? Or perhaps ‘incompletely’?
Is there any difference between taking a morning after pill (when a woman isn’t even certain she is pregnant) and undergoing an abortion at 8 weeks?
If we do outlaw it completely, what do you propose the crime be? Murder? 1st degree, 2nd degree? Manslaughter?
Are any exceptions allowed? If so, what are they, and why?
How do we deal with doctors who perform them? Nurses that assist? Women who undergo them? Are they all charged with the same crimes? Is the woman, as the one instigating the process, going to be dealt with more severely? If not, why not?
Will the crime a doctor is charged with be different from that of the woman? Why, or why not?
What of friends or family who know ahead of time that a woman is endeavoring to get an abortion, but do nothing to prevent it, or do not notify the law?
Of course these are very big and broad questions (and only a few, I might add), so it isn’t really possible to explore them all in a blog. But at least some of them deserve a few comments. As you address them, please do so from the point of view that we are now speaking of laws in 21st century U.S., which means that they must be passed by one or more legislative bodies. By legislators who are elected, by a pluralistic society. These are now gritty ‘real-world’ considerations, and there is a good possibility that ideals don’t get a fair shake.
Glad to hear it! It’s a tough thing to re-assess a position on a subject like this, so bravo for having the courage to reconsider 🙂
We commence by changing minds, reawakening consciences which have been lulled to sleep. We begin by providing women with more support to enable them to keep their children and flourish. We start by improving services to make it simpler for other couples to take care of the babies put up for adoption.
Is there a difference between killing a teenager and a toddler? If not, why would there be a moral difference between aborting a child a few days after conception and aborting a child at eight weeks?
Legitimate discussion could be had among lawmakers concerning the exact implementation of the law. However, all these questions can be generally answered by asking what would happen if the child being killed was a newborn instead. Among pro-lifers I’d say that there’s pretty universal agreement that medical staff involved should be prosecuted severely. For the women, there would be scope for more limited culpability. If you’re looking for an example of what this might look like, you might consider looking at current Irish Law.
Lots to reply to here but i’m not near a computer for a few weeks. ‘Til then!
Hi: Sorry for the lull, but I’d been away from a computer for a few weeks.
I ended my last comment by asking you to suggest next steps, in particular how we would deal with all the various people that are involved in abortion – the woman who undergoes it, the doctor that performs it, the friend or confidant that helps a woman go through with it, etc. I asked also that you take into account that this is the 21st century U.S., and a law must actually pass both houses of congress, be signed by a president, and withstand likely challenges in court.
You suggested it might be modelled on the Irish law, which, from what I understand, allows it only in cases where there is substantial risk to life (the mother). It does not prohibit a woman from travelling during pregnancy.
I think there is no chance that a similar law in the U.S. could pass all the hurdles I listed above, so in that respect your proposal is a non-starter.
At the same time, I don’t think this ought to be the end of the conversation. After a bit of a digression I’ll explain why.
Earlier in the thread I noted that societies have a very nuanced view on ending human life, and in some cases it is entirely accepted, even if regretted. You did not accept that, and said “ I would suggest it’s pretty simple – we don’t kill innocent humans.” I pointed out many instances where innocent humans are killed, with no repercussions to the perpetrators. Your stance, at least as I understood it, is clear and allows for no grey area.
Consider this scenario: A mafia kingpin decides that a person is an obstacle to their plans, and decides to hire a hitman to murder the person. The don’s brother is drawn into the scheme in that he gives a ride to his brother to meet with the hitman. The law would go after the hitman, the don, and the brother, with no mercy.
Re-state this, substituting the pregnant woman for the don, the fetus for the victim, the friend who escorts the woman to the abortion clinic for the brother, and the doctor who performs the abortion for the hitman. If there is no grey area, there can neither be any justification for treating these actors any different from those in the first scenario.
If killing an innocent human = ‘killing an innocent human’, then the woman is a mafia don, the friend is an accomplice to murder. The fact that anti-abortion advocates refuse to face this hypocrisy is why they have no chance of eliminating abortion via the courts. In other words, anti-abortion activists hold a firm line when it comes to defining life (and therefore murder), but lose their nerve when it comes to punishing the crime. Pro-choice people point out you are trying to have your cake, and eat it, too.
On a very fundamental level, though the effort to eliminate abortion by enacting laws against it is doomed because it is mistaking the end for the means. That is to say I believe what EVERYONE would like is for there to be no abortions. Abortions happen because people who do not want to get pregnant, find themselves pregnant. Pregnancy is the problem.
I know a number of people who have had abortions, and I asked several of them how it happened that they ended up pregnant. To a person, they said they were young, ignorant, and didn’t use birth control (or didn’t use it properly). If our society poured resources into solving these problems, not to mention support systems for people who did find themselves pregnant but did not want to have an abortion, the entire debate around should abortions be legal would simply disappear, as the demand for abortions would fade.
So I end up where I started: There is hypocrisy on all sides of this debate, and as a result there is no chance of abortion being outlawed (in my view). But, the entire issue is a red herring in that it conflates means with ends.
Why? What hurdles? What is the substantial difference between the US and Ireland which makes this an impossibility?
Are we doing this again?! I had already responded to each of your examples…
The punishments for each of the perpetrators would not be the same in your mafia example.
Your assertion that “anti-abortion advocates refuse to face this hypocrisy is why they have no chance of eliminating abortion via the courts.” is completely unsupported. To what can you point to in support of this? Are you really arguing that pro-choicers would be more amenable if pro-lifers would concentrate on the severe punishments imposed on those participating in abortion?
And again, I have to point out that we’re not imagining some fictitious world where abortion was illegal. It has been illegal before…
It’s both. One of the reasons so many are desensitized to abortion is they incorrectly reason “Well, it’s legal, it must be okay…”
I’m pretty sure Planned Parenthood wouldn’t like this state of affairs…
You’re trying to go back up the causal chain. Why stop there? Why not go one step further? Why isn’t sex the problem? Why not further? Why isn’t poor morality the problem?
Contraception is now more available than ever. Vast, vast sums of money have been poured into sex education. Weren’t we promised that this was going to solve everything? It hasn’t.
Additionally, as I have pointed out previously, a contraceptive mindset naturally breeds an abortive mindset. Planned Parenthood argued this themselves in the courts.
The situation would be eased, yes, but it would not disappear. Again it comes back to the central question: are you killing an innocent human being? If the answer to that is “yes”, it shouldn’t be legal. However, there will always be people who will get pregnant and then decide they would rather kill the child than complete the pregnancy.
Hi: A friend gave me some tips on using the html tags, and I’ve tried to cut and paste your comments from above with a double indent. I have no idea if this will work, but I thought it would be simpler to reply in one comment.
Obviously what follows is simply my take on things, and I recognize that you may find much to disagree with. Some of the differences between the U.S. and Ireland are that Ireland is a much more homogenous culture, with a very strong and more monolithic religous character. The U.S. has apparently more broad support for some sort of abortion rights, though the details of those rights are not agreed upon. The hurdles I refer to are the many steps legislation must pass through before it is signed into law, and even once a law is signed, it is sometimes struck down by the courts. Furthermore, the federal/state structure of our government makes it even more complicated. Laws at the federal level supersede state/local laws, and if we consider that the federal government has not even sent a draft out of committee for debate on the floor of either the house or senate is an indication that, while in some states there is strong support for restricting abortion, at the national level there is not (yet?).
——————————————————————————–
No, you didn’t. I gave examples of drones bombing wedding parties, atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, local police shooting in the back unarmed people in their own back yards, an old person feeling threatened and shooting someone, to which you stated “the purposeful killing of innocents is evil.” But I don’t think that addressed my actual comment that society has a nuanced view of killing, which I believe my examples show.
———————————————————————————
If anti-abortion advocates insist on characterizing abortion as the murder of innocents, then it is fair to insist that they hold the courage of their convictions and prosecute the friends of the woman who help her get the abortion as accomplices to murder, and her as a ruthless killer. Stated another way, how could a mafia don not argue that he is entitled to the same leniency as that extended to the woman? You must (in my opinion, that is) be able to convince the public at large that you are not being hypocritical in your use of arguments; if you are going to claim the moral high ground, you cannot cede it when it suits you, yet at the same time accuse your opponents of moral laxity.
——————————————————————————–
You are right, I didn’t not offer any support for my assertion — it is my opinion, solely. My larger point is that anti-abortion advocates are insisting on a rigid definition of abortion as the slaughter of innocents, yet are unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators and accomplices. I am not arguing that pro-choicers would be more amenable to restrictions if there were punishments that mirrored those we mete out to contract killers and mafia dons. I am arguing that these hypocrisies are a major obstacle to society accepting stronger restrictions on abortion (to say nothing of outright bans, which is effectively what Ireland has done).
—————————————————————————–
I understand that the anti-abortion folks do not like Planned Parenthood, but I don’t see anything in their behavior that indicates they want abortions. I feel pretty confident in saying that I believe EVERYONE would like there to be no abortions, which is different from saying there should be no ability to have an abortion. As an aside, I think your mention of Planned Parenthood in this context is a strawman.
——————————————————————————-
Many people would agree that sex is the problem, and many would also agree that poor morality is the problem. Or at least is a problem. But not everyone will agree with that, and for that reason we must be wise in how we deal with this.
———————————————————————————-
Contraception is, apparently, not adequately available, nor has what we’ve done regarding sex education (not to mention moral education) been adequate. That is an indication that we need to do more, not give up. Regarding a contraceptive mindset–>abortive mindset, that suggests to me that your position is that we ought to be trying to wean ourselves off of contraceptives (I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, so correct me if that is not the case). While I know that some religions oppose the use of contraceptives, that position is not widely supported in society, and I think you have an even steeper hill to climb with that one. I don’t intend to talk you out of any of this, I am simply approaching this from a more ‘realpolitik’ position.
Sorry for the delay, I forgot about this, but fortunately the Irish vote today reminded me…
I’m going to keep pointing out that the America you are describing is not how America has always been. Not only that, the tide is turning… More people are becoming pro-life and more people would like to see some level of restriction on abortion.
This is not an argument against abortion reform. What you are unintentionally arguing against is any reform of any laws in the US!
I’d invite you to re-read your paragraph, but imagine that it was being made by someone saying that they didn’t see US slavery reform as being legally viable.
The unintentional killing of civilians in war or as a result of an old person incorrectly perceiving a threat is unfortunate and should be avoided, but it is not intrinsically immoral since there was no intent to kill them. Police brutality is immoral and those who commit it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
For generations the public have been pumped full of propaganda that “it’s just a clumb of cells”, “it’s not human”, “it’s not a person” etc. It has been the law and is therefore (mistakenly) assumed to be moral. At least in the short term, this lessens their culpability. Not only that, they are scared and think that this is their only option. All this reduces their culpability in the immoral act.
The doctors, on the other hand, have no such exemption. They have the detailed biological knowledge of what they are killing, how they are going to kill it and they are not undergoing the stress which comes with a crisis.
Because he knows exactly what he is ordering. There is no doubt in his mind that a living human being is going to be dead at the end of the process.
I disagree. The morality of abortion is clear – it’s the taking of an innocent life. The degree to which the law is merciful to offenders is a separate issue.
Asking your account to cheat on your taxes is wrong, but the legal ramifications for the two of you can be more nuanced. Killing someone is wrong, but the legal ramifications for someone coerced or deemed mentally incapable of fully understanding the act is another matter.
Yes, because innocents are being slaughtered. How to best respond to this violation of the Moral Law is a separate matter.
And I’m afraid I just don’t accept that this is a major obstacle to restricting abortion. It may occasionally be brought up as an argument, sure, but the arguments people chiefly use against abortion restrictions are that:
(i) the aborted fetus isn’t human
(ii) the woman has a right to choose
As you say, you don’t have any evidence to back up your assertion, whereas I can at least point to the most common arguments raised by pro-choice advocates. They don’t reject the pro-life position because they really think it impractical, they reject it because they think access to abortion is a good thing.
I think you should listen to the testimony of more former Planned Parenthood workers, such as Abby Johnson and Patricia Sandoval.
If Planned parenthood doesn’t want people having abortions, why do they have abortion quotas but not adoption quotas. They are a business, an abortion business, despite the ridiculous claim that it’s only 3% of what they do
The strawman fallacy is when you refute an argument not actually presented. Where have I done this?
I’d ask, if it’s not sex or morality, then what actually is the problem?
What does being “wise in how we deal with this” mean? Are you suggesting that abortion should therefore be available? If so, not only do I think this doesn’t follow, but it’s hiding behind euphemisms. Let me present the argument here as a syllogism to make the argument clearer:
1. Many people think that unwanted pregnancies relate to sex and morality
2. However, not all people do
3. Therefore…we have to allow women to kill their unwanted children?
Conclusion (3) does not follow from (1) and (2).
Please justify these statements. Contraception is more widely available than it has ever been before. Sex education starts earlier and continues longer than ever before (although when it isn’t, there are some interesting consequences).
I’m saying that pro-choice advocates themselves argued for abortion on the basis of contraception. They are the ones who are making the connection. I just happen to agree with them.
In a society where we separate sex and procreation, where we think we can engage in the process of making babies without actually making babies, how are we likely to treat any unwelcome guests?
If people want to use non-abortive contraception, they can. I think there are some serious dehumanizing effects to this and giving women Class 1 carcinogens is just crazy, but if it doesn’t kill an innocent child, I’ve got no particular desire to see those kinds of contraceptives made illegal.
Hi:
and
I didn’t do a good job of communicating, I think. I agree completely that the U.S. is different today than it was in the past. I also agree that in the future it will likely be different. It may in fact come to pass that we change the laws around abortion, but that is not at all a foregone conclusion. My elaboration of how difficult it is to pass bills into law when there is no obvious social consensus stands, and in fact your mention of slavery is a good example of that very phenomena. We debated the issue bitterly, for decades, and the law only changed after a horrific war. AND, even then, society continued to put up stubborn resistance to the idea that all men (and women) are creatd equal and are due consistent and fair treatment under the law. I was born in 1960, and the U.S. was still effectively an apartheid state then. Consider that for a moment — 100 years after the the civil war society had not yet digested and actualized the principles that were ostensibly resolved in that conflict.
For this reason I completely and fully support the effort to challenge abortion laws. I think the debate does a great deal to reveal attitudes that are otherwise unexamined. We’ve already uncovered a few in this discusssion, some of which are not agreed upon between us. For example, that society has a nuanced view towards the taking of life. I also do not think that the current state of the laws will last, nor do I think that society has digested the new rights.
The point of that argument is to clearly state the obvious cognitive dissonance in the anti-abortion argument that abortion is on the one hand murder, but the sister that accompanies her sister to an abortion clinic is not an accomplice to murder, or that the woman having the abortion has not contracted with a hired killer. You don’t get to argue the one, without clearly and openly admitting to the other, and also without offering a sound argument for why one murder accomplice is not the same as another.
As someone who does support abortion rights, I justify my support of this version of taking a life by accepting that society has a nuanced view of taking a life, and that this is one of those categories. I also stated in an earlier post the conditions under which I would support much greater restrictions on abortion.
Hmmm. Perhaps ‘strawman’ is not the correct term, as you suggest. Maybe ‘red herring’? The point I was trying to make was we were not talking about Planned Parenthood, but you added that to the mix, which I felt was not germane to the immediate point I was making. Sorry.
By ‘wise in how we deal with this’ I meant that people have sex. Often. Most people (let alone most catholics) do not subscribe to the catholic church’s teachings on birth control. Being wise in this context means we must recognize that something is too big to change by a simple edict.
We need to do more, because people are still ignorant of their bodies, how women get pregnant, and how to prevent it. The proof of that is that there are still so many unwanted pregnancies, many of which occurred because people did not use birth control.
Hi: I just re-read what I posted, and I think I would like to add to the last portion:
I also fully support more strenuous efforts in ethical and moral education. Churches have long played the leading role in this, but society is increasingly secular, so my ‘we must be wise in how we deal with this’ comment applies to this as well.
I agree with all those statements.
While social consensus is always a desirable thing to seek, I have to ask, was there social consensus when abortion in the US was made legal? Nope – it was decided by the majority vote among nine Supreme Court judges. Incidentally, while we’re on the subject, did you know that “Roe” from “Roe v. Wade” became pro-life?
So that begs the question, should slavery have remained, since there was “no obvious social consensus”? I hope you’d say “No!”. But why? Because slavery is objectively wrong and has no place in civilized society. I would say exactly the same thing is true for abortion.
I couldn’t agree more. I think a significant percentage of people who are nominally pro-choice have never been exposed to pro-life arguments. You see this whenever Trent Horn hosts his “Why are you pro-choice?” call-in show.
You’ve brought this up a few times now and I still don’t see how the examples you cite plays into our discussion. So, instead, let me ask you</strong to comment upon the examples you gave. Do you think it's moral to bomb civilians? Do you think it's moral for a policeman to shoot an unarmed man in the back in his own back yard? If you answer "No" to both of these questions (as I hope you would), what impact does that have on the abortion debate?
Maybe you're thinking that human life is sometimes accidentally taken and society just has to shrug its shoulders and put in place better procedures and legislation to avoid it happening again. However, this is not the case with abortion. It is not accidental. It is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life, something which is always immoral.
I’ve answered this multiple times now. There is similarity and there is dissimilarity between the two situations.
First, the similarity. It is cooperation in bringing about the ending of a human life. In the same way, self-defense, manslaughter and murder all result in a dead person. However, the morality of the situation and the culpability of the person who did the killing is different in each one.
So, the dissimilarities. Those involved in an abortion are under the misguided idea that they are caring for the woman, so this therefore lacks the malice of forethought for a cold-blooded execution in your mafia example. This is exacerbated by having a couple of generations of social propaganda from pro-choice advocates convincing everyone that abortion isn’t really the killing of a baby because (they incorrectly say) it’s not human. All of this lowers the culpability of those involved. This culpability would increase as education increased.