Abortion is a difficult and nuanced issue, society has been struggling with for some time. It’s not going to be solved here, and we are not going to try. Rather, the goal here is to have a dispassionate and agenda-less discussion surrounding the arguments both for and against abortion, a deep dive into the logic and assumptions that guide those arguments. If you are a true believer who is certain in their convictions, than this is not the thread for you. If you are looking to explore and contribute to a framework for thought on the issue, it might be for you.
We’ll begin with the pro life argument. While it is framed and discussed in different ways, conceptually, the argument always boils down to this: a fetus is a unique living human being, a person, and it’s life is entitled to the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other human beings, both morally and as a matter of law.
Put another way, an unborn child Is a human being and it has a right to life same as any other human being. A person has no more right to kill that fetus than they have a right to kill any other human being. Abortion is the taking of a human life, a murder, and is wrong. That’s basically it.
The argument depends on the following assumptions and values.
That a fetus is a human being/person/human life
That human life has a high value/sanctity
The circumstances under which a human life may be taken are rare, prohibitive and restrictive.
Society has an interest in items 1-3.
Those holding a pro-life stance often assert that their motive is to protect human life, and that doing so takes precedence over other concerns.
I think that most people would agree readily with items 2,3,4. Item 1 is where a lot of disagreement occurs. There is some disagreement as to what exactly constitutes a human being/person. An argument for or against item 1, needs to define exactly what constitutes a human being and show how a fetus either fits or does not fit the definition.
That is basically the pro life argument.
I would consider it a pretty strong argument, invoking as it does the prohibition against murder.
Let’s turn to the pro choice arguments. In order to overcome the pro life argument, a pro choice argument must address and overcome one or more of points 1,2,3,4. The ones that do not, are bad arguments, and are dismissible. Let’s start with these and get them out of the way.
There is a series of arguments that simply doubt the sincerity of the pro life argument. “Pro- lifers want to send women back to the dark ages/control women’s reproduction/hold women down/hate women,” or impute some other ulterior motive to those making the pro life argument. These are bad arguments because their degree of veracity does not affect the degree of veracity of the stated argument. The motive of the person making the argument doesn’t matter. It is besides the point. Attacking the motives of a person making an argument can be effective rhetorically, but it has no effect on the logical soundness of the argument itself. If an evil and untrustworthy person says the sky is blue, that does not change the color of the sky. It’s still blue. If a fetus is a human being and it is wrong to kill a human being, it doesn’t matter who or why the person stating these facts is stating them. So, rational people will tend to consider arguments along these lines as without merit.
There is another series of arguments that simply ignores items 1-4, and instead makes other assertions. Some of these assertions are compelling and easy to agree with. “A women has a right to control her own body.” “Unwanted pregnancies cause great hardship and damage and destroy lives.” Etc. The reproductive rights arguments fail for the same reason. Most would agree that a woman has the right to control her own body, but at the same time she doesn’t get to kill other people to do so.
The most common good arguments on the pro choice side focus are on the humanity of the fetus. The fetus is not a human being, not a person. Destroying it is therefore not murder. Many years ago, I had a excellent discussion with Gaudere on this board. She made the argument that the sanctity of human life really applied to the human mind; a human brain capable of human thought. That is the criteria by which she defines person. Up until about 6 months or so, the fetus’ brain is not developed enough that any human thought was possible. Therefore just to be safe, set the cutoff off at 4-5 months gestation to apply a safety margin, and that would be a safe cutoff time before which an abortion would not destroy a human mind capable of human thought. Behind this argument is the concept that when somebody is “brain dead” they are considered dead almost universally. Politicians, doctors, most religious authorities all agree that there is no human life to protect. Terminating the remaining life to harvest organs or save resources is considered not only acceptable and appropriate, but encouraged. If there is no longer a human mind to protect because that mind has died, there is no human life. If that is how we define the ending point than it would seem logical to define the beginning point the same way.
That was about 10-15 years ago, and thanks to Gaudere, I considered the matter reasonably solved. I had a logical and ethical framework, that was consistent and made sense for which to think about abortion. For me, the issue was resolved. I was pro choice up to the 16th month.
I am in the habit of turning issues over in my head during long runs to distract myself, and I would occasionally think about Gaudere’s arguments during these. I found a couple of problems. A person is declared brain dead when there is no hope for recovery or improvement. Given a normal gestation, a fetus will attain the capacity for human thought. That was one problem. Another problem, is that if a person is in a coma, their brain is not capable of human thought. You just don’t get to kill somebody because they are not capable of human thought. What about people with severe developmental disabilities? The problem is, that I can think of no test that you could apply to a fetus to demonstrate that it is not human, for which there is an analogue that would also disqualify a living human being. There is a gradual beginning at conception whereby a unique set of DNA becomes a human being. When is the line crossed between inanimate tissue and personhood? Is there a line, or is it the process itself?
A unique human life begins at the moment of conception. When does it become a person and acquire rights, most fundamentally, the right to life? 4 months gestation? Birth? High school graduation? I think much of the reason why we still have an abortion debate is because we still cannot answer this question satisfactorily. We cannot define precisely what makes a person, a person. It’s a fundamental conundrum.
Going with anything besides the moment of conception seems arbitrary and in some cases presents horrifying and troubling consequences. If a pregnant woman is attacked and she miscarries as a result, is it not a murder of her unborn child?
There is a huge disconnect between society’s agreement of the necessity of protecting infants and newborns once they are born from their mother, and not extending that same protection to that same entity while it is still connected to its mother.
The youngest premature baby to survive was born at 21 weeks 4 days as of this writing. In some states it would be legal to abort this child for the next several months. What is the actual difference between. Why is killing the one that was born “murder,” while aborting one that was older and more developed “abortion?”
Perhaps it is subjective. Perhaps personhood is conveyed by the mother carrying the unborn child. If she wants to give birth to the child it is a person. If she wants to abort it, it is not. She is carrying it. It is her choice maybe nothing else matters. This is a very neat and emotionally satisfying answer to the question. I reject it under the grounds that personhood is too important a concept to be allowed to be subjective. History is too full of atrocities perpetrated upon “non persons.” Slaves were not considered persons. The Nazis considered Jews not persons. If a fetus is not a person while it is gestating what has fundamentally changed at birth? It seems to me fundamental to the definition of personhood, that it is a self-proclaiming quality, not a granted one.
This has consequences to for the pro-life argument. Many in the pro-life camp offer exceptions for the victims of rape or incest. If human life and personhood begins at conception the person of the fetus is blameless for the crime that brought it into being. Why is that person being killed for the actions of another? A pro life stance that grants exceptions to rape/incest is not a consistent stance.
Medical necessity is less troublesome. We all understand the cases where two lives cannot be saved and society must choose, conjoined twins, etc. As a society we do not insist on losing two lives because we cannot decide which one to save.
After thinking along these lines for some years, I came to the conclusion that I could not find a rational, logical and ethically acceptable conclusion other than personhood beginning at conception.
At the beginning of this argument I listed the four assumptions/values underlying the pro life argument. I mentioned that most people would agree that the second third and fourth were correct. The more I thought about the first; that a fetus is a “person,” the more convinced I have become that this is rationally and ethically unassailable (I would be more than happy to be convinced otherwise.)
As I thought about the second third and fourth arguments though, they were not so easy to defend.
The second, That human life has a high value/sanctity is surprisingly difficult. Why? What is this value? Where does it come from? There are two basic arguments. First is the religious. The value of human life is God given. One either buys into this or does not. There is not a lot up for discussion on this. The secular argument for the sanctity of human life is that you agree not to kill other human beings, and argue against the killing of other human beings that are not you, because you yourself do not wish to be killed and it is in your best interest to belong to a society where this is the rule. This second argument brings up some interesting consequences. A fetus is not capable of entering into this agreement or being party to it. Helpless people, infants, invalids, etc., are all a part of society. The only tangible connection to society that a fetus has Is through it’s mother. It remains unseen, and uncontactable. Perhaps a fetus is a human being, a person, but it is not a part of society, because it is unconnected to society. It’s mother is the only proxy. The mother can exercise that proxy on behalf of the fetus and enter it into the societal compact… or not.
This is uncomfortably close to the subjective argument already discussed as to be untenable, except for one thing. There does seem to be something to the idea that an uncontacted, unconnected entity cannot be a part of a society, and therefor cannot be a person. Consider a thought experiment:
A bay is delivered premature by machines while the mother is unconscious. Maybe she never even knew if she was pregnant. Without ever encountering another human being, this baby is placed in a dark box. It is fed, and it’s wastes are removed, but it receives nothing else, no contact, no stimulus, no light, no sound. Nothing. Ever. Thirty years go by, and the entity in the box is kept alive. Who or what is in the box? Is it a person? Is it murder to kill it, or mercy?
The theological answer is clear. It is a person with a soul. The secular answer is less clear. It would seem that that 30 year old is LESS of a person than a mature fetus. Both have the same experience, but a fetus may develop. The 30 year old is past the point of possible development. It has not received the stimulus necessary to develop and is past the point of maturity where such development is possible, just like a person blind since birth whose sight is restored at age 30 is past the point neurologically where they can learn to see.
Again, is the entity in the box human? Is it murder or mercy to kill it? If it is ok to kill it, why isn’t it ok to kill a severely neurologically disabled person of equivalent capacity who was not raised in the box? The disabled person outside of the box has connected with society though. They have interacted with others and are a part of society. The entity in the box has not.
If you are ok with killing the person in the box, you probably should be ok with abortion from a rational basis. I am not. The theological argument aside (simply because it is definitive,) I think the secular argument applies broadly. The not killing other people because we want to live in a society where people are not arbitrarily killed means that one needs to be absolutely certain that one is not killing a person before one kills. Like with the fetus, it is difficult to apply a test to this entity that disqualifies it’s personhood that does not disqualify other persons we already “know” that it is not ok to kill. We end up back at our first pro life rule. Our 30 year old fetus is a person. It’s Lack do participation in the societal compact does not disqualify it.
The consequence of this is that the secular argument about the sanctity of human life does not hold, only the religious one. Most of our values in society are derived from traditional religious values. The sanctity and value of life is one that would seem to survive on its own without a religious underpinning. Alas, it does not.
So, from a secular standpoint, being purely rational, is human live in fact sacred? Is it wrong to kill people? Why?
The fact is that there are and have been people so terrible that I value them less than I do my dog. My dog knows love and compassion and loyalty. It can be caring and selfless, and often is. Not all people can make that claim. There are lots and lots of people on this planet. Maybe too many. They are all going to die, and most of the ones that have been on this planet are already dead. What is so special about human life? I can come up with emotional answers, but I don’t have one from a rational/practical standpoint.
Let’s review the four points of the pro life argument again:
That a fetus is a human being/person/human life
That human life has a high value/sanctity
The circumstances under which a human life may be taken are rare, prohibitive and restrictive.
Society has an interest in items 1-3.
I conclude that #1 is true. I cannot conclude that #2 is true outside of the theological argument. Where does that leave us with 3 and 4?
On the individual basis, we find some problem with the societal compact. At the societal level though, the compact is simply the statement of reasons for #4. It is not a society if everybody just kills everybody. Society does have use for killing though. We have wars. We execute criminals. There are a variety of extreme situations in which the taking of a human life is approved. Can we rationally argue that we exhibit a respect and value towards human life? We pay it lip service, but surprisingly little beyond that, considering how often both at the individual and society level we are willing to spend the capital of human life.
In fact, society, as we live and behave in it, looks a lot like a society in which #1 and #2 are not held to be true, but #3 and #4 are held true for practical purposes. #3 and #4 are necessary for a practical functioning society. #2 is not. If #2 is not true, than #1 is necessarily a moot point.
Human life is not sacred. We pretend it is as the rationale to enforce the societal compact of #3 and #4.
Throughout history killing humans for expediency, or convenience when practical has very much been the norm. It is hard to assert that as a whole we have paid much more than lip service to the notion of the sanctity of human life. We behave in accordance with practicality, not in accordance with our stated values.
If that is what human civilization is and has always been, what the is the place of abortion?
It is eminently practical. Unwanted children have disproportionately bad outcomes, as the economist Arthur Levitt demonstrated when he linked the drop in crime rate in the 80s and 90s to the legalization of abortion. Those unwanted and neglected children who would become criminals had a greater chance of being aborted and never burdening society. Than too, it can be a horrendous understatement to say that an unwanted pregnancy is inconvenient. It can change the course of and destroy lives. There are many, many practical reasons for abortion. Even the most hardcore pro-lifer must concede that abortion is a tremendously convenient, economical and practical solution to the potentially catastrophic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. The objection that it is the taking of a unique human life only holds water to the extent that human life is valuable/sacred (which cannot be demonstrated outside of the theological argument.) It only holds water if society does not take lives for reasons of practicality/convenience (which it obviously does.)
The pro life stance is a traditionally conservative argument. Conservatives often claim that liberals are impractical, and that they legislate according to how they would like the world to be rather than to how it is. In this case it is the left being practical and legislating for the real world with its pro-choice stance, and the right engaging in legislation based on wishful thinking.
Thanks for reading. Mostly people in GD put out arguments that they are committed to. I am really not committed to anything that I have written here. I feel certain that continued thought on long runs and such will lead to further modifications. If what I said angers you. I’m sorry. There is no call action, or guide to life here. This is just an examination of an issue, and I’m not trying to change anybody’s mind.
Here’s a summary of conclusions for debate. If you disagree with what I said, these are my conclusions so far:
A fetus is a human/life/individual/person as much or more so than many others we consider persons
-
Outside of the religious argument, there is no sanctity or intrinsic value to human life.
-
The restriction against against indiscriminate murder is necessity to the structure of society.
-
Society does not actually endorse or protect human life but spends it freely as a matter of practicality and convenience.
-
The argument against abortion depends upon values that society only pretends to espouse and pays lip service to but does not actually hold in support of #3.
