|
Life and Abortion: A Pro-Life Defense in Dialogue Form John G. Crandall  Three college students, Ilene, Carl, and Steve, meet at Millie's restaurant between classes for dinner and conversation. Ilene is a pro-choice feminist. Carl is a pro-choice Christian. Steve is a pro-life Christian. Ilene: Sorry I'm late. We had quite a volatile discussion in Political Science that spilled over after class. Someone brought up Roe v. Wade and the debate started heating up. A couple of "fundamentalists" got on their soapbox and started thumping the Bible. Carl: What happened? Ilene: Some of us hit them with a barrage of questions they just couldn't answer. Steve: What were the questions? Ilene: We said, "You Christians are so intolerant! Why can't you respect other people's rights? You want to take away a woman's right to choose. What about the plight of poor women? What about all those unwanted children who will likely be abused or neglected? Have you adopted any unwanted kids lately? If not, then quit trying to force your morality on us!" Steve: So what were their responses? Ilene: Mostly they quoted Bible verses and said abortion is murder. They were so intolerant. Now I know you are a pro-life Christian, Steve, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I don't hear any good arguments coming from your side. Steve: That's unfortunate, because there are very good arguments against abortion; either they have not been articulated well enough or else they have been lost in the popular rhetoric. Ilene: Well, I'd like to hear these arguments as long as you don't ram the Bible down my throat. Steve: I don't have to toss Bible verses at you to argue the pro-life position. Yes, I believe Christianity is true for a lot of reasons. It corresponds to the way life really is and includes reason, logic, and moral objectivism, all of which stand on their own yet make up an integral part of the Christian worldview. As Christians, Carl and I may have an internal discussion using the Bible, but we are not limited to arguing that way on public issues like abortion. Ilene: Wait a minute! What's this "moral objectivism?" Just because something is wrong for you - like abortion - can you say it is wrong for everyone? Steve: Don't you think there are certain moral principles that always apply to everyone? Ilene: No, I think morality is relative. Steve: Let me ask you a question. Abortion advocates claim that women have a "right" to abortion. Where does this right come from? Ilene: It comes from our autonomy. We have the right to govern over our bodies. Steve: Is autonomy something fundamental that everyone possesses? Ilene: Yes. Steve: Well then you do agree that at least one thing - autonomy - is a morally objective principle, right? Ilene: I suppose it is. Steve: And would you consider the random killing of innocent people to be objectively wrong? Ilene: Of course! Steve: So we are in agreement that at least two principles - the principle of autonomy and the fundamental right to life - are morally objective principles. Look, I'm just trying to point out that a meaningful dialogue on important issues like abortion is dependent upon both sides recognizing that certain rights and wrongs can be objectively known and distinguished.[1] Without this as a starting point, the dialogue quickly becomes a debate over power rather than reason. Ilene: Okay, I see your point. But what happens when objective values conflict? Suppose pregnancy endangers a woman's life. Steve: Values do sometimes conflict. So the higher value must take precedence over the lesser. Pro-life advocates agree that a significant threat to the mother's life, such as a tubular pregnancy, makes an abortion a necessary exemption. Ilene: Then aren't pro-lifers who claim that abortion is murder really being hypocritical by making such an exemption? Steve: No, in such a case the principle of beneficence requires that we obtain the highest good. An abortion is necessary to save one life, the mother's, where two lives would be lost without it. Better to save one life than to lose two. The intention is to save a life -- not to kill.[2] Carl: Steve, this is where I part ways with you and many of my fellow evangelicals. Abortion is such a divisive issue. Why must we always be debating? After all, the Supreme Court has already decided the outcome once and for all. Steve: Has it? It seems to me the continuous debate over abortion since Roe v. Wade means that the issue certainly is not settled. Besides, if the Court were the final arbiter of morality, then the Dred Scott decision of 1857 affirming slavery would still stand. But we all know now that was bad law. Likewise, many think that Roe v. Wade is bad law. Legal decisions are overturned all the time. My point here is to show the distinction between legal decisions and moral decisions. The two do not necessarily correlate. Because abortion is legal now should not exclude us from challenging it on moral grounds. Ilene: Okay, let's talk about what's moral. Let's talk about child abuse. Is that moral? Without legal abortion lots of unwanted children will come into the world subject to a miserable life of neglect and abuse. Steve: Actually, several studies have shown that child abuse has increased sharply since Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, it seems to me that "wanted-ness" as a value applies to things, not to people. Let me ask you a question. Do you think unwanted children should be allowed to stay in the world? Ilene: What do you mean? Steve: There are lots of unwanted children in the world, and unfortunately many are abused. But should we execute them in order to prevent them from being abused? What about the homeless and orphans? Should we get rid of them simply because nobody wants them? Ilene: Of course not! They are people - human beings! Steve: Exactly! So the question is not whether the unborn are wanted; the question is whether they are human beings. If the unborn are human, then to execute them would be the worst kind of child abuse imaginable.[3] Ilene: All right. I see where you are going. You want me to admit that a fetus is a human being by virtue of its "humanness." It may be human, but how can you say that an embryo is a human being? Steve: What else could it be? The complete genetic structure of a human is present in the embryo. Science confirms this. This entity is human because it comes from human parents, and it is a being by virtue of its existence; it is a human being.[4] Ilene: Look, I'll admit that there is little difference between a 7 to 9-month old fetus and a newborn baby. And to clarify my personal position, I think that if a woman has not had an abortion by the third trimester, then it is usually wrong. Steve: Why the third trimester cut-off? Ilene: Because "preemies" can survive outside the womb. They are viable. Steve: Okay, I see two problems with that. First, at what point do we say an unborn child is viable? In 1973 the Court said viability was 24 - 28 weeks. But some 20-week-old babies have survived, and with better neonatal technology...well, any viability standard now would be arbitrary. But there is a second and more fundamental problem. Let's say a fetus is nonviable until 20 weeks. All we are saying is that it is nonviable outside its natural environment - the womb. But we can also say that Carl is nonviable outside his natural environment. Suppose we placed him on the moon. Does Carl's dependence on his environment, the Earth, make him any less a human being?[5] Ilene: Well, no... Carl: Look, Steve. I understand the humanness argument, but I have some theological problems with a fetus being considered a "living" being - if Ilene will excuse my interjection. Ilene: Be my guest. Carl: Doesn't Genesis 2:7 teach that a person becomes a living being when breath enters his nostrils?[6] Steve: I think it states that God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Some theologians say this is when Adam became "alive," and others say this is when God gave him a spirit or soul. Either way, since this is specific to Adam and since Adam was never an unborn child growing inside his mother's womb, then this case is unique to Adam. So it does not follow that all humans since Adam are living beings only after they breathe through their nostrils. Carl: Okay, but what about the gospels? Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus speak against abortion.[7] Steve: What's your point? Carl: If Jesus did not condemn abortion, how can it be immoral? Steve: Well let's reconstruct your point in syllogistic form and see if it works:
Minor Premise: Jesus did not condemn abortion. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.[8] Carl: Right. Steve: Now answer this question. Are slavery, child sacrifice, and drunken driving morally permissible? Carl: Well, no. Steve: Then your argument doesn't stand because the major premise is flawed. Jesus did not speak to a lot of issues that we know to be immoral simply because many, like abortion, were not contested. The biblical principles were quite clear - human life at all stages of development was considered sacred. Tertullian, writing between the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, clearly affirmed this. He stated that killing is forbidden even of a child forming in the womb because "the fruit is always present in the seed."[9] Ilene: Speaking of "seed," how do you equate a human embryo with a human being. I say it is only a potential human being. After all, an acorn is not an oak tree! Steve: To use your analogy, it's true that an acorn is not an oak tree. But that just shows that an infant is not an adult. An acorn has all the genetic structure to become a great oak. It happens to be an immature oak, but it is an oak; it never becomes an oak.[10] All living things go through changes. An acorn becomes a seedling, a sapling, and a mature tree. A fetus becomes an infant, an adolescent, and an adult. Living things change and develop; they go through several stages. But as they change in size, shape, and appearance, they always remain what they are. Human beings are what they are - human beings. So it is not that a fetus is a potential human being, rather it is a human being with great potential. The "being" is every bit as human at conception as it is at adulthood. Furthermore, what is it that all human beings share in common, whether we are adults or children, black or white, rich or poor? And what common trait do we all possess that is worthy of equal protection? It is our humanness. Humanness sets us apart as unique and valuable beings. Humanness deserves the most fundamental protection at every stage of development. That is the basic pro-life position. We cherish liberty as much as pro-choicers do; we just think liberty stops where life begins. Now, if that answers your question, let me recount what we have so far. We are agreed on the possibility of moral reasoning by objective standards. And we agree that unjustified homicide is morally wrong. We also understand that human life is fundamentally valuable regardless of arbitrary values placed on it such as "wanted-ness" and "viability." Finally, I think I showed that a human being is a human being at every stage of development. Carl: So where are you leading? Steve: Let me propose a simple deductive argument; a syllogism based on what we have discussed:
Premise 2: The unborn is an innocent, fully human being. Conclusion: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.[11] Carl: I don't have a problem with your argument as it stands. However, just being human doesn't make one a person. I don't think a fetus qualifies as a person. Steve: Okay, so what's the difference? You'd better be certain there is a difference before you claim that you can kill a human being who is not a person, but you can't kill one who is a person.[12] Carl: I think a person is one who possesses certain traits like consciousness, the ability to reason, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness. It's obvious that a fetus has few if any of these. Steve: In the first place, philosophers who argue for personhood are not agreed upon any set of criteria. Some don't think our concept of what a person is can solve the abortion debate.[13] Second, if we do use your criteria, what follows? Children under two years old, comatose patients, severely retarded individuals, and even those who are temporarily unconscious do not qualify as persons. Clearly, we know intuitively that killing children, the disabled or unconscious individuals is wrong. Carl: But don't some theologians argue this way? Steve: Yes, I know of a prominent theologian and philosopher who aligns himself with the theory that personhood in the unborn is a gradual process. He thinks that since it cannot be determined precisely when a fetus becomes a person, then abortion should be legally permitted before six weeks after conception.[14] I think he is wrong. If personhood can't be determined, why offer a six-week cut-off point? Why not five, seven, or twelve weeks? Furthermore, it may very well be that personhood cannot be determined simply because there is no distinction between a person and a human being. Unless such a distinction can be clearly made, we may do better to respect all human beings as persons with a basic right to life. Carl: Even if I can't tell exactly at what point a human being becomes a person - and it may be a gradual process - it seems obvious to me that an adult has greater personal value than an embryo. Steve: So you want to say that a human being does not have full ontological and moral status until he or she achieves personhood, whenever that may be. Right? Carl: Something like that. Steve: And therefore it is not seriously wrong - or at least not as objectionable - to kill an unborn human. Carl: Right. Steve: Then if there are degrees of personhood before birth, wouldn't there be degrees of personhood after birth? In other words, by your standards, wouldn't it be less serious to kill a five-year-old child than an adult? Explain that to the mother of a five-year-old! But let's look at it from a different angle. You seem to imply that a human somehow achieves a greater degree of "being" and moral status as it develops into a person. But where does this "being-ness" and "moral-ness" come from except from the basic genetic structure already present in the human embryo? Suppose I granted your distinction between a human and a person. I think an argument can be made that the human being is fundamentally more valuable than the person. What is personhood but the unfolding of potential from the actual? The "person" cannot exist without the human being; it arises from it and is dependent upon it. So the human being by its actual existence can be seen as necessary to, and therefore more valuable than, personhood.[15] Where does this lead? I think it shows that the moral value of the person is implicit in its "humanness," and the ontological value of the person is implicit in its "being." So the full moral and ontological status of the person is fully present in the "human being" at every step of development. And so to kill the fetus is to kill the child is to kill the adult.[16] It seems we are back to my syllogism and its inescapable conclusion. Ilene: I've got to hand it to you, Steve; you've made a good case. You seem to have accurately condensed your points into your simple deductive argument. We all took Logic together... Carl: Didn't I sleep through that course? Ilene: ...and we understand that a true conclusion follows from true premises. But I think I see a way out. You said abortion without "proper justification" is morally wrong. Wouldn't self-defense be proper justification? Steve: We've already allowed for exemptions when the mother's life is in danger. Ilene: Let me offer another scenario. My Feminist Studies professor, who concedes the personhood of the unborn, once lectured that abortion is justified because the fetus is an intruder in the woman's body. Suppose a couple has sex. They use every form of contraception available to avoid pregnancy, yet the woman gets pregnant anyway. The conceptus is then an uninvited trespasser who is attacking the woman's body. So the woman is justified in using force to repel her attacker. She is merely defending herself. Steve: That's a very persuasive-sounding argument, but I see several problems. I don't see how the fetus is attacking the woman's body; the woman helped to create it. In that case it is a part of her and she is attacking herself. But that's not what is going on. There is no intrusive attack because there is no intruder. In the first place, it seems inherent in the very nature of the sex act that an open invitation is extended for another "guest" to arrive. Second, a trespasser is someone who invades another's space. But the unborn child belongs in her mother's womb. She is developing in her natural environment. So if the unborn child is actually in her rightful place - the womb - then doesn't she have a rightful claim to her mother's body? And if the unborn is a fully human person, as your professor concedes, doesn't the mother have a moral obligation to nurture this person, this child, just as any mother has the moral duty to care for her dependent children? Otherwise, by your professor's argument, one can have no quarrel with Susan Smith who strapped her boys into a car and pushed it into a lake. After all, these children were trespassing on her life![17] Ilene: I see your point. Carl: This is all getting too deep for me. Perhaps it's better that we live by faith in grace. I don't think I need all this philosophy stuff. Anyway, I'm late for class. See you two later. (Carl leaves). Ilene: Carl and you are both Christians, yet he doesn't share your view. Why not? Steve: Frankly, I don't think he has really thought this issue through. Unfortunately, many evangelicals have so emphasized "living in the spirit" that we have neglected to develop a robust "life of the mind." But I think that's changing. A number of Christian philosophers and thinkers have come to the fore in the marketplace of ideas, ably debating important issues like abortion and making the case for the Christian worldview.[18] Ilene: Well, Steve, I must say I've never heard the pro-life position so well articulated. You've answered all my objections so far. Being a reasonable person, I'm struggling with the only conclusion I can see - your syllogism works. I've got to rethink my position. Steve: Thanks, Ilene, for taking the time to hear my position. And I'm glad we could discuss it in a calm and reasonable manner. I've got to get to class now, but let's talk again. Ilene: I look forward to it.
©1998 John G. Crandall. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. |
