I hesitate to put this topic on my blog because it causes such a strong reaction by most folks. In fact, the discussion generally provokes a pretty strong reaction from me. This is why I really want to carefully treat the topic from my point of view without trolling
. As such, I just want to state my position from various perspectives and summarize what I believe.
First, let me define what I'm talking about to be clear. Abortion is the action of destroying or purposely rendering a human embryo or fetus inviable. I consider all forms of abortion as homicide. Just to be clear: homicide is not necessarily criminal. Our legal system, for example, incorporates the ancient concept of "justified homicide." Justified homicide is the termination of a human life under mitigating circumstances. For example, the most obvious case happens when someone threatens you with a gun in your home and you kill them. The law is carried out such that this action is not considered criminal.
The debate about abortion falls into several arenas that frequently get confused. There is the criminal, social, and political aspects of the discussion, which is concerned with whether or not government or some part of society is responsible for taking action in a given circumstance. There is the moral and ethical arena whereby you state that an action is objectively right or wrong (morality) or helpful or harmful to society, yourself, or some other class (ethics). There is the scientific and medical arena concerned with the actual nature of the action itself. I'd like to consider each of these aspects in the reverse order they are given here.
Science of Abortion
The medical science related to genetics and life forms one leg of the foundation of my ethical argument against the practice of abortion. The second leg of that foundation is that human life is sacred and should be protected, which is a moral and ethical argument I will consider in detail later. If life is sacred, then an important question is: when does an individual human life form? If life is not sacred, then it doesn't really matter if you are taking a life way anyway, so the point is moot.
I believe the answer to the question as to when life begins is answered medically without doubt. At which point does a person become an individual? When that person becomes genetically distinct: conception. At the point at which an individual sperm joins with the egg and their DNA combine to form a single whole, an individual exists, the potential becomes actual. I'd be willing to debate this point, but I can't think of another possible juncture where you can say a new individual exists. All other changes to an embryo or fetus or merely changes of degree, not changes of nature.
One might also suggest that the individual is formed when the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. Yet, that doesn't really fly because the uterus merely acts as a feeding mechanism. Just because the embryo fails to survive because it doesn't start gathering food from the mother doesn't mean it was never a person. One might as well say that an infant was never an individual human because it failed to crawl to and suckle from it's mother's breasts on its own.
One might suggest that the individual is formed when it starts feeling or thinking or becomes a recognizable animal form or some other measure. The difficulty is that it isn't possible to define a moment or point of time at which such things happen. Furthermore, you can take away these things without necessarily losing individuality. Does a person cease to be an individual life form if she becomes paralyzed and without sensation? What if he stops thinking? A person can still act and be an individual in a completely catatonic state. Some humans are badly disfigured, but it doesn't remove the fact that they are human.
One might also suggestion that the individual is formed when it could survive out of the womb. However, this becomes difficult to measure. Records are set on a fairly regular basis for younger and younger premature infant survival. I don't see any reason why medical technology couldn't be developed to allow an embryo to develop completely outside of a mother's womb. In fact, it could even happen in my life time. Who knows?
One might state that an individual is only possible at the moment of birth or at some point after birth. However, what's special about the infant leaving the womb? There's nothing magically different between a fetus and an infant at full term except that one is in the mother's womb and the other is not. One might even say that individuality doesn't come until later as the child's complex psychological personality begins to form. Yet, this reasoning suffers from the same difficulty as the earlier arguments about feeling, thinking, or recognizable form.
I simply cannot think of any other moment where an individual is formed other than conception. That doesn't mean there isn't some other point, but as far as I can understand the medical process, conception is the only point where an individual life can be said to start.
If life is sacred and life begins at conception, then the definition of homicide definitely applies to an embryo that is terminated by a pill or through an abortion performed by a doctor. Again, this doesn't necessitate that such an act is criminal, just that such an act is the taking of a human life: homicide.
This basis is the reason for which I cannot accept the argument that this is about a "woman's body." It is, in fact, about a woman's body and the infant's body. As an illustration, if two men are trying to go opposite ways through a doorway and neither is willing to give up to let the other through, it's about each man's body causing hardship for the other. One would not say that one man would be justified in killing the other just so he could get the other out of his way.
Morality and Ethics of Abortion
My morality is based upon the teaching of the Bible as well as I understand it. My ethics are based upon that moral foundation as much as possible because I don't believe a complete ethic can be derived from nothing. (In fact, the definition of "derivation" requires that one assume some basic principles.) On the other hand, I can still appeal to common sense and what's good for society and individuals to help bolster my ethical and moral positions.
As I mentioned before, I believe human life is sacred. Let me define what I mean. Something that is sacred is something regarded with great respect and reverence. Something that is sacred must not be destroyed or damaged without justification. Without such justification, destructive action against a sacred object is wrong.
Personally, I believe human life is sacred because this is a common theme in the Bible. However, if I cast aside the Biblical basis, I believe there is still a strong argument for the sacredness of human life. The basis for that statement is simply this, is it alright to take another person's life for any (or no) reason at all? Is it okay to kill someone because you feel like it? Is it okay just because you wanted to? Is it okay to kill someone because you can?
I don't think I've met anyone of any creed, belief, or unbelief that thinks it is justifiable to kill for no reason or any reason at all. I certainly hope I've never met anyone like that. Therefore, nearly everyone believes human life to be sacred even if individuals have no religious faith behind such a belief. I use the word "sacred", but I don't mean that in a necessarily religious way.
If human life is sacred and life begins at conception, then any individual between conception and birth (those subject to abortion) are sacred and must not be destroyed (aborted) without justification. Again, this doesn't mean that the unjustified destruction of an embryo or fetus is criminal. Abortion is homicide. Homicide might be justifiable. Whether it is justifiable or not it might not be criminal.
Another possible fuzzy area presents itself, however. How much justification is required to abort an unattached embryo? An embryo attached to the uterus? A fetus? An infant? A toddler? A child? An adolescent? An adult? A senior? It is possible that different amounts or different kinds of justifications might be possible. Each stage of life might have it's own criteria and certainly each stage of life presents a different set of circumstances. For example, if you kill an adult threatening you with a weapon in your own home, that's generally considered justified. However, if you kill a toddler that threatens you with a weapon, you will not be considered justified under any circumstances I can imagine.
This is, in my opinion the very crux of the matter. Abortion is homicide, but what suffices as justification for this form of homicide? This answer is much more difficult to discern. Does risk to a mother's health justify abortion to save the mother's life? Does psychological risk justify abortion? Just because the father of the unborn individual raped the mother to form the individual is abortion justified? Is the mental health or intelligence of the mother factor into such a justification?
It is my opinion that these are the questions we need to focus on as a society rather than fighting this as an epic one-way-or-the-other battle. What suffices as justified homicide when it comes to abortion? Can abortion be justified as is the case with the homicide of an adult? Or is abortion always unjustified as is homicide involving a toddler? Is abortion justified when the parents of the individual are especially underprivileged (or even over-privileged)? Is abortion justified when the individual is found in utero to be susceptible to or affected by disease? Is abortion justified if the mother is taking medication that happens to destroy or render the embryo inviable? These questions should be considered rather than making this the monolithic issue of: Abortion-for-or-against.
My answer: I view abortion as permanently unjustifiable. I can find nothing in the Bible that suggests that taking a child's life to save the mother is justified. In the case of rape of the mother, there are instances of such an act but the infant not aborted (yes, abortions were possible in ancient times and the practice of justified infanticide was also a common practice in many non-semitic cultures). I don't find anything justifying abortion in any of the above questions in the Bible either.
Again, this doesn't mean that all abortion must be criminal. It is possible for me (or even general society) to consider a particular abortion wrong, but for the law to allow such an abortion to proceed without any criminal ramifications. In fact, it's even possible for an action to be ethically justified but considered criminal. To illustrate the point, take the face mask penalty of football. Whether the face mask was intentional (unjustified) or clearly accidental (justifiable) doesn't matter. It's so important to protect players from neck injury that any contact of one player's hands to another player's face mask is an automatic penalty. The same is possible in law.
Politics of Abortion
Therefore, the second half of this question is to decide when abortion homicide is committed, is such an act criminal? Currently, the laws are generally written such that no criminal charges can be brought against either the doctor performing nor the patient receiving an abortion for any reason or at any time during pregnancy up to the point of birth. I will qualify that previous statement by saying that some criminal prosecution is possible under certain circumstances. For example, some states forbid abortions to be given to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. In such a case, it's not the abortion itself that's considered criminal, but that a medical procedure was carried out without the consent of the individuals in charge of the minor.
The libertarian view on the subject is that the government should not intervene and it is up to the individual to make up their mind on such a decision. Therefore, they believe government should not intervene regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved. It's simply none of the government's business.
This is one of the points at which I disagree strongly with libertarians. In my view, since I consider human life sacred and to undoubtedly start at conception, this is equivalent to saying that a parent is legally free of criminal consideration for killing their own child until that child is no longer under the guardianship of the parent. Such a view diminishes the sacredness of human life and reduces human life to the same level as personal property. If an infant, toddler, or adolescent is to be protected under the law, I do not see a difference as to whether the individual is within or without the womb. I see no reason why a pre-born individual should be considered with any less protection.
Conclusion
I feel pretty strongly about this, but I've worked very hard to present an objective view of the topic. I've purposely avoided any emotional imagery or other tactics in presenting my view and any point presented here is open for comment by any person visiting my site. However, if a troll or poster comes in using emotional imagery or misleading argumentation, you can expect to have your comment deleted. Disagreement is welcome; irrational and emotional argumentation about any aspect from any position is not.
Cheers.
Genetically Distinct: excellent bright line, perhaps even right!
I couldn't help but comment on this analysis for a single point, the search for human life by the nature of a genetically distinct individual. It's very very good. Generally speaking, I reject "beginning of life" arguments based on faith, because while I think that faith is valuable, using government to impose rules of faith on others is immoral. However, using the genetically distinct individual as a bright line struck me as profound. (In fact, in the time that I've been thinking about it, I might even personally perscribe to this standard.)
I thought that perhaps I would do a little "devil's advocacy" and try to blur the bright line a little bit and see how the analysis continues. First, some basic assumptions I'm making (which are not above argument, but frame my scenarios):
1. To prevent is not the same as to end. Life is of the highest value, but potential life is not of the same value. Not planting grass seeds is not the same as killing grass. As such, using a condom (for example) is not and will never be murder. It may be undesirable, but it's a different conversation.
2. Genetically distinct implies genetically distinct from the "host" (or, plainly mother)
3. Faith based decisions are completely just, but only by choice. However, a strong science or "reality based" bright line is just for socialital enforcement.
First scenario, organ transplantation. This is a geneticaly distinct entity in a host. Clearly it has no potential to become an entire human, but assumption number 1 in full effect. (If one uses potential rather than existance, then it is to prevent not to end.)
Second scenario, random mutation. A person can be partially genetically distict from mutation like cancer. In some cases, a tumor can be a different "person" after genetic damage.
Third scenario, emergent properties and continued technology. Your conception bright line is fantastic, but as you stated it hinges on the fact that no other bright line is perceptable. If being "human" is an emergent property, perhaps we will be able detect it later. Would you move your bright line later if that became the case? If a soul is detectable, would you change your bright line to there?
Thanks for the post. :)
-- Travis
Re: Genetically Distinct
Well, I would disagree that imposing rules of faith to others is immoral because I don't believe that morality exists independent of faith. Beyond faith in conscience or some other moral authority there is no definite way to limit morality at all. That authority may even be secular (Marx or Confucious, for example), but it's still a form of faith in that person's definition of morality because such details cannot be absolutely derived (i.e., derivation requires a basis of assumptions).
Just by common sense your first scenario seems fine. Organ transplantation has a clearly established precedent. However, the morality does become muddied if the organ or tissue has the ability to generate a whole person. This is part of my argument against embryonic stem cell research. For example, a recent attempt at making embryonic stem cell research more palatable is by only taking a few of the cells away from an embryo. However, it is possible for such cells to split naturally and become maternal twins. On that basis, I consider embryonic stem cell research to be immoral. As a note on practicality, hundreds of efficacious treatments have been developed using adult stem cells while there have yet to be a proven treatment developed that is unique to embryonic stem cells.
In the second scenario, I think I would refer to the mutation as a derivation rather than a unique individual. An additional special case is the use of genetic treatments for disease that intentionally modify the genetics of a person or part of a person to treat certain diseases. These aren't performed to create a unique individual, but to fix errors within (and perhaps one day improve) a person's genetic code.
As for the third scenario, all bets are off. My argumentation is based on the fact that the universe can be empirically understood and rationally explained and the parts that cannot be are matters of faith. If there exists a way of explaining things through some sort of higher level (e.g., via the mysteries remaining in quantum physics) beyond derivation and induction, then I can't predict anything. That is, I haven't heard any rational explanation of "humanity" or "sentience" that actually works. The mind-body problem is far from solved without depending upon either some kind of mystical or faith-based explanation for soul. The apparently random nature of quantum physics provides a basic level of uncertainty, though.
I don't believe that any such revelation is forthcoming, so I'm not too worried about it. By faith, I believe that humans are specially created in the image of God and not the outcome of a random evolutionary process. Highly autonomous machines might be created over time, but that doesn't mean that they will think for themselves and be "persons". That just means that they're just highly complicated rules engines that are able to solve problems using advanced mechanisms. I consider soul or person-hood to be unquantifiable.
As a side-trip I just thought of: what if we have true free will but exist in a universe that is completely deterministic? I believe such a thing would be possible in this universe without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy. God, being omniscient, could have created the universe such that our bodies would deterministically carry out actions we are "making" as we go since He knew, being omniscient, which actions we would make. As such, we would be, in a sense, both observing a deterministic universe and acting with free will simultaneously. This is a somewhat satisfying thought at the moment since I do feel like I'm observing the universe from the outside whenever I really think about it.
Cheers.