Life: Abortion is the the termination of a human life and, as such, has the moral (and ought to have the legal) equivalence of murder. Life begins at conception and ought to be protected by law from that point forward.
Choice: Abortions are private procedures that involve what amounts to a temporary appendage of a woman's body. Government influence over a decision as personal as having an abortion is unwarranted.
I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that most pro-choicers don't condone murder and most pro-lifers aren't partial to a choiceless totalitarian state. As always, the question depends on where we draw the lines and how we view the world. Both sides will generally agree that it is--and ought to be--illegal to kill a person. But "person" is a social concept distinct from a human life.
To prove this, we need look no further than the famous Hyde amendment that prevents federal funds from being used to pay for abortions for Medicaid recipients. It includes an exception that all but the most rigid pro-lifers generally accept:
SEC. 508. (a) The limitation established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion-
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Fetuses conceived through circumstances that are not socially sanctioned (i.e. rapes or incestuous couplings) are not to be afforded the same protections that other fetuses enjoy. There's no basis for arguing that such fetuses are less alive than their more conventionally-conceived peers. The only reason to grant a woman an additional choice in those particularl instances is that the fetus lacks social legitimacy: one can question whether or not it constitutes a member of society (i.e. is a person). If it isn't a person then terminating its life isn't murder and the government has no authority to interfere with a person's privacy and forbid an abortion. And thus you get a an area, limited as it may be, where the conclusions of pro-lifers and pro-choicers converge.
The reason is that their positions aren't necessarily incompatible, their definitions are. The disagreement centers on the question of when and under what circumstances a biological proto-human enters society and falls under the umbrella of its protections. When does personhood begin? And that's a social question whose resolution can't be decided by any sort of scientific argument.
If a fetus is a person, and thus presumably entitled to all the privileges and rights that persons have, I don't see why somebody pro-life would acquiesce and allow abortion if having that child puts a mother's life at risk. One could argue that if the fetus endangers the mother, then an abortion is act of self-defense on the part of the mother for her very own survival. That, however, raises, the question of whose life is worth more, the mother's or the fetuses. If a pro-life activist says the mother's life is worth more, I must enquire as to why that should be the case if really believe a fetus is a person qua person.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the argument that a fetus is a person stems from the absurdities that it entaisl. Should a fetus be assigned a birth certificate from the day of its conception or the day of its birth? Should fetuses (feti?) be assigned social security cards when they are conceived. If a mother has an abortion, should she get the death penalty? What about her doctor? Is it manslaughter?
I also don't agree with the argumetn that states should decide it. Think of the absurdity of living in one state where an abortion is considered a capital offense whereas in the neighboring state, it is regarded as a relatively simple medical procedure. When dealing with the issue of abortion and ultimately determining when life begins, we can't cop out and simply say let the states decide. A judicial decision on abortion is tantamount to defining the rights and livihoods of a person/fetus. The right to life is too fundamental of a right to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In other words, it's all or nothing.