These remarks have come after many iterations and reversals. Few subjects are more arguable than or conjure up such wildly ranging emotions as abortion. So multifaceted are the varying arguments, perspectives, justifications, reasonings, &tc., that thoughtful reflection or some cogent belief is quite nearly hopeless.
There are the pro-lifers who see no alternative to abortion whatsoever. There are the pro-childkillers with their complete focus on the woman’s “right” to do whatever she likes irrespective of the fetus. And there are the more earnest abortionists, who justify abortion in certain circumstances ranging from the most horrific situation (e.g., rape, incest, and when the lives of the mother and/or child are stake) to the inconvenience of child rearing. Arguments proliferate, talking of rights, circumstances, the human condition, and fetal status. No matter where the focus, the issue is so intellectually, ethically, morally, physically, and emotionally complex, its difficult to avoid discussing the pieces in order to satisfy a perspective of the whole.
Like most people, I have faced a difficult challenge addressing this subject. At times, I consider the subject with sensitivity, recognizing and empathizing with the obvious challenges of pregnancy – emotionally, physically, economically, &tc. The stress of pregnancy is hard enough when it’s desired; it’s an incomprehensible burden when it is not. Then, perceiving the equally incomprehensibly bloody process of abortion, I would take the defiant approach deriding those who would be “baby killers.” Only then, I would be reminded by some sad story of misfortune that not all abortionists view the result of human conception as expendable. Back again, then, to the sympathetic impulse, understanding that unwanted pregnancy can come to the most conscientious, decent people who find themselves in an untenable situation. Flip and flop I would go between heartfelt sympathy and utter contempt.
Part of the problem is that I have clearly a bias, and I was striving for justification of a existing viewpoint. But I wanted to reflect on this issue with sincerity, understanding, and as much clarity as possible. I wanted to appreciate the ideas, justifications, and cases for abortion, and the people who espouse them.
Why We Have Abortion
There are so very many reasons for abortion, with most justified by some unique and circumstantial rationale. The potential for radical birth defects in the child. The parents’ inability to raise the child. Threat to the mother’s health. Pregnancy and the emotional impacts from rape or incest. To be sure, any human being with a modicum of sense and sensitivity understands the pain, uncertainties, and challenges of these situations.
Of course, there are those vile and repugnant proponents of abortion coming from the pro-women’s right crowd. They promote “reproductive rights” (whatever those are) that usurp the genuine rights of the fetus. Here I offer no empathy or understanding, as though any woman has a right to kill a child simply because it is her body, her choice. The NARAL web site, for example, smugly presumes that the unfettered choice to terminate the life of a fetus is a matter of nature and right. These animals, while they cannot be dismissed on a political and social plain, should be considered as something less than human: without conscience, manifestly selfish, and with neither the intellect nor heart to be judged as anything but the sub-human species that they are. Alas, had only their mothers had the same convictions…
From whatever perspective the pro-abortionists view the subject, their case is made by dehumanization. By removing human qualities and reducing life to a mere diploid or collection of mitotic cells, the proponents ostensibly remove the guilt associated with abortion. It’s one thing to make the rights of a newly conceived child less valued than the rights of the mother (i.e., the stance of the “women’s rights” herd), it’s another thing entirely to remove the fetus’ rights easing the culpability that the mother or the law might suffer. I understand this approach because, again, I appreciate the challenges of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. If you have the conscience to feel the guilt, then the best remedy is to remove the source of that guilt, even if that remedy is a placebo.
Two conclusions about abortion.
First, regarding the role of legislators with respect to abortion. Again, few ongoing issues summon so much emotion and angst. And since there can be no worse way to govern, i.e., from a state of passion, judges must rule and elected officials must legislate this issue (or any issue, for that matter) as dispassionately and disinterestedly as humanly possible. No matter what compels their decisions – i.e., intellect, logic, rationale, reason, experience, spirit, religion, sensibilities, faith, &tc. – passion cannot be part of that equation. The emotive response to the inability to process our experiences cerebrally is a powerful impulse. But it must be overcome, and government must balance the complexities of the issue at hand: the issue being not only the right or wrong of abortion but government’s (state and/or federal) role in it at all. To reiterate: government must not consider the subject of abortion with passion, but with thoughtful, persuading logic and rationale.
Second, no matter the reason or cause for abortion, the justification for proponents is that there is a gap between conception and sentience during which there is no “humanity” as we think of it. Again, there are proponents who make no distinction or don’t care – human or not human, the mother’s dubious and selfish “right” to slaughter a child/fetus outweighs anything else. But for all other proponents, before any serious argument for abortion can be made, they must first explain away human existence and reduce it to a mere globule of actively dividing cells.
The fact of the matter is this: we just don’t know when humanity begins. Neither science nor religion can uniformly inform us regarding the precise moment when sentience occurs, or if it is there all along. Science cannot describe the spiritual confirmations any more than it can objectively place a subjective value on humanity. Nor can religion qualify the physical dissimilarities between the first cell formed upon conception and the resulting person. At this time, we simply cannot arrive at consensus if humanity begins at conception (or even pre-conception) or later.
Abortionists would believe later, anti-abortionists would not.
But that is not the point. The point is that we have no consensus from either the standpoint of faith or that of observation. So, assuming that any reasonable person would agreed that human life is of value, they would further conclude that when there is doubt, it is better to fall on the side of its benefit, that which is least harmful.
In others words, if we believe that humanity begins long after conception and we are indeed right about that, aborted fetuses will have still perished for whatever reason. But if we are wrong, and life is sentient and with soul at conception, then having endorsed abortion we will have endorsed murder. (We know that there are those who can live with that – even if sentience and humanity begins at conception, the child’s life is still less important that the woman’s “reproductive rights.” Again, I leave those animals out of this evaluation.)
However, if we believe that humanity begins at the moment of conception and are proved right, what’s the worst that can happen? Life will have been created as it was intended, lest we commit murder.
So it seems to me that, since we don’t truly know when “humanity” emerges – or at least cannot agree upon it – giving life the benefit of the doubt is the logical conclusion. That, I believe, should be the starting point for any discussion of abortion and its legal, spiritual, scientific, &tc., justifications.