I had a thought about one aspect of the abortion debate. It addresses the narrow question of whether a person should feel more uncomfortable about a woman having an early-stage abortion (say two months) than using contraception. I suggest that some reasons for this discomfort might not be valid.
What are the differences between contraception and abortion? They are both means of preventing a baby from being born. Assume that we are discussing a barrier method of contraception. In what I will call the gamete case, a bunch of sperm and an egg are kept apart, but if allowed to come into contact they might produce an embryo that would grow into a baby. In the other case the embryo already exists. What makes the embryo more worthy of protection?
One possible argument is that the embryo will result in a baby but the gamete case probably won't. But neither is certain to produce a baby. The embryo has about a 90% chance of turning into a baby (the spontaneous abortion rate is around 10%). If we assume the most favorable gamete case, a reasonable guess is at least 30%. It is not a large difference in the realm of moral reasoning, and I have never heard of anyone whose discomfort with contraception increased with the likelihood that a pregnancy would otherwise result.
Another possibility is that a large part of the potential baby's future nature is determined in the embryo case but not the gamete case, because its genetic makeup is complete. (Note that the half of the genetic material from the mother has already been specified in the gamete case too). The genetic blueprint for the potential baby has been determined -- but no one knows what it is. Here I think an analogy is useful. Suppose there is a national lottery, and one million people have bought tickets for $10 each. Before the drawing, the Supreme Court rules it illegal, and everyone gets their $10 back. No one has much cause for complaint. Suppose on the other hand that the drawing is to be done in two stages, one to determine the city of the winner and the other to determine the individual. The first part of the drawing has been done, but no one has looked at the result and that information is about to be destroyed. I doubt there would be any serious complaint then either. I use the two-stage drawing to account for the fact that a person's nature is determined by far more than their genetics. If the drawing has already been completed and Frank Jones of Cleveland has been on the news discussing how he will spend his winnings, many people would feel that is not fair, but that is a different case.
Another reason that abortion might cause more discomfort is because in that case a symbiotic relationship between mother and embryo has started to develop. People might learn whether this reason affects them by considering how much discomfort they feel about the destruction of extra embryos created in vitro as part of fertility treatments.
There are other reasons a person might feel an early-stage embryo is worthy of more protection, perhaps because thinking that it will feel pain, or that it has started to look a little like a person, or it has been endowed with an immortal soul. I won't address those.
There are many people who view abortion as murder, and some who feel so strongly about it that it becomes the focus of their lives. There is a natural tendency for pro-choice people to try to meet them halfway. I think that is sensible as it pertains to policy, but I think it also may lead people to inappropriately modify their own personal beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Bart,
Although I am a supporter of the right to abortion, I do understand why people feel less comfortable with a late-term abortion than an earlier term one, and it makes some sense to me. I think we can agree that killing a baby once it is born is not moral, despite the fact that there is a chance that the baby may not survive. A late-term fetus has lower viability than a baby that has been born, but many people are aware of babies born prematurely who become healthy adults, and therefore people may therefore consider a late-term fetus to be pretty close to a baby. Where do you draw the line as to what level of viability constitutes a human life? Different people draw it differently, hence the abortion debate. Personally, I draw the line at birth, which is a clear boundary of some kind, but I think I do it largely for pragmatic reasons. Others draw the line at conception, also for the pragmatic reason that they do not want to argue against contraception. Some even object to contraception, while others draw the line somewhere between conception and birth. Frankly, I think the people who have the most consistent view are the ones who object even to conception. Not that I am advocating that.
Thanks for the comment. I realize that across a number of issues, I favor quality of life over quantity of life.
> Although I am a supporter of the right to abortion, I do
> understand why
> people feel less comfortable with a late-term abortion than an
> earlier
> term one, and it makes some sense to me.
Me too. That was why I was narrowing the issue in what I wrote to
very early abortions.
> A late-term fetus has
> lower viability than a baby that has been born, but many people
> are
> aware of babies born prematurely who become healthy adults, and
> therefore people may therefore consider a late-term fetus to be
> pretty
> close to a baby. Where do you draw the line as to what level of
> viability constitutes a human life?
The Supreme Court has keyed on viability outside the mother,
which is intriguing but not necessarily what I would pick.
Embryos made in vitro are also fairly viable -- if put in a
different mother.
> Different people draw it
> differently, hence the abortion debate. Personally, I draw the
> line at
> birth, which is a clear boundary of some kind, but I think I do
> it
> largely for pragmatic reasons.
True, and good enough. But it is only after birth that many
severe handicaps or terminal conditions can be diagnosed.
> Others draw the line at conception, also
> for the pragmatic reason that they do not want to argue against
> contraception.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that as a pragmatic reason.
> Some even object to contraception, while others draw the
> line somewhere between conception and birth.
People who object to contraception bring in the idea of a natural
order between husband and wife, etc., which I don't relate at all positively to. If the idea is maximizing human life, morality could require women taking fertility drugs to encourage multiple births and staying pregnant as much as possible, etc. An absurd notion, of course.
> Frankly, I think the
> people who have the most consistent view are the ones who
> object even
> to conception. Not that I am advocating that.
Every human being, whenever you categorize that as beginning,
gets a death sentence merely by living. I agree it's consistent.
Post a Comment