|
(The following is a condensation of an article by James Kidd from the
May-June 2004 issue of This Rock magazine.)
Abortion is legal. Infanticide is illegal. Why the difference?
The answer is that there must be some quality (call it "X") that all
newborn babies have that makes them worthy of protection by law but that
preborn babies do not have and therefore are unworthy of that protection.
What could "x" possibly be? It is important to note that all pro-choice
arguments assume that there is an "X" while all pro-life arguments assume
that there is no "X".
What follows are some of the answers pro-choice people use for the quality
"X" and how you could answer them if they do so.
"X is the fact that a fetus is part of a woman's body."
This is a common response which radical feminism has used to convince
women that a fetus is no different that any other part of her body and
therefore she can do what she pleases with it.
If this "X" is used, ask the pro-choice person what is meant specifically
by "part of the body". Ask if there is a difference between being "in the
body" and being "part of the body". Many things enter the body (e.g.
food, germs, etc.) but are not considered part of the body. Ask then when
a fetus ceases to be part of the woman's body. Is it when it is partially
outside her body? Completely outside the body? When the umbilical cord is
cut? Although this may seem like splitting hairs, it is a crucial point.
In 2003, an Illinois judge
overturned a murder conviction of a woman who killed her baby while it was
outside her body but still attached to her by the umbilical cord!
"X is the fact that a fetus is not alive."
Many people think that the abortion issue revolves around the question
"When does life begin?" There is a simple answer to that question: Never!
At no point in the reproduction process does a non living thing suddenly
become alive. All living organisms are generated from organisms that are
already living. In the case of humans, a sperm (a living thing) unites
with an egg (a living thing) to form a zygote (another living
thing). Some pro-choicers will challenge you on this point, saying that
if a sperm or egg is as much a living thing as a zygote is, then it would
follow that killing a sperm or egg would also qualify as murder. This
charge misses the simple fact that a zygote is substantially different
from a sperm or egg in that it has the potential to become a fully grown
human being whereas neither the sperm nor egg have this potential.
"X is arbitrary. Our society chooses to make birth the dividing line, but
that's just as good as any other point."
From conception to death, there is a person involved. Just as the US
courts once "arbitrarily" ruled that a black man is only three-fifths of a
person, it is clear that legality does not equal morality. To choose
birth as the arbitrary dividing line between life and death for a fetus
cannot be defended.
"X is the fact that a fetus is not a person."
Some philosophers define "personhood" as the possession of certain
qualities which distinguish a person from a non-person. Some of these
qualities are self-awareness, ability to interact with others, ability to
perceive, or the ability to choose. If these are to be the qualities that
determine the difference between life and death, then doesn't it follow
that all humans who do not have these qualities, including those who are
comatose, mentally impaired, or with Altzeimer's disease should also be
barred from legal protection and put to death? It is difficult for the
pro-choice person to defend non-personhood for people already born.
"X is viability."
"Viability" is a term invented by the US Supreme Court. Both medically and
legally, the notion is so nonsensical that it is difficult for any
intelligent person to defend it. Viability even depends on time and
place. A non-viable infant 100 years ago would be viable today because if
medical advances whereas even today an infant viable in the US would not
be viable in rural Nigeria.
The legal status quo is that, prior to viability, states may not prohibit
abortion; after viability, states may pass laws that protect the unborn,
but only if they contain an exception for "the life or health of the
mother".
The Supreme Court defined viability as being "potentially able to live
outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" adding that a
viable fetus must be capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's
womb". The definition of "meaningful" was never given but, rather, left
to doctors to decide in each case.
The result is that, if a woman wants an abortion, all she has to do is
find an abortionist who is willing to attest to her fetus's
non-viability. And the abortionist, who has a financial stake in the
outcome, is not likely to be unbiased in his decision.
"X is the fact that a fetus is a symbiont (parasite)."
Symbiosis is defined as a relationship between two or more organisms of
different species in which one or more benefit from the interaction. As
such, there can be 4 types of symbiosis:
Mutualism -- both partners benefit from the arrangement
Commensalism -- one partner benefits and the other is unaffected
Amensalism -- one member suffers and the other is unaffected
Parasitism -- one member benefits and the other is harmed
It is easy to see that the fetus benefits from its mother, but to claim
that it is a parasite means that the mother must actually be harmed. The
mother certainly experiences discomfort during her pregnancy but can that
be called "harm"? And doesn't the joy at the birth of her baby more than
compensate the mother for her discomfort?
Conclusion -- Pro-choice people know that they must have a reason for
their position on abortion but they have great difficulty in defining or
defending what their "X" is. In your discussions with them, ask them
specifically what "X" they are using to defend their position.
The fact is that there is no good defensible "X" position and therefore no
substantial difference between abortion and infanticide. Perhaps some of
the arguments given here will help you to change their minds.
|