Below are 11 true statements...
1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
Many people incorrectly believe that the arguments against abortion are based solely on the Bible and religion.
Clearly not the case. None of these statements says anything about religion or the Bible.
Yet, if you add these up, there is a striking logical inconsistency.
The issue of abortion comes down to the issue of personhood - that is, what is it about us that makes us a 'person' and confers the rights and liberties afforded to all 'people'?
Afterall, if a fetus isn't a person, then there is no issue.
The ways we define (derived from some of the statements above) "person" will result in a logical contradiction if you allow abortion. If you say personhood is conferred at birth, then fetal homicide/manslaughter laws don't make sense.
If you say you are only a person when you can live on your own then you take away the personhood of those on life support.
If you say that you are person when you have the ability to reason, then you take personhood away from the severely mentally handicapped as well as infants.
On top of that, abortion also violates principles of justice (see numbers 9-11)
Now let me say this. I am not opposed to all abortion. I think in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in serious danger, it should be allowed. These, however, are very rare occurrences and make up a tiny fraction of the number of abortions performed in the US - they also do not contradict personhood issues because they are extreme cases that allow for exceptions.
What I do think is important (especially from the standpoint of knowing what we believe and why we believe it) is that we have a coherent and logical understanding of personhood - as this definition applies to very many issues and topics in our society.
-T
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I am not opposed to all abortion. I think in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in serious danger, it should be allowed...they also do not contradict personhood issues because they are extreme cases that allow for exceptions."
ReplyDeleteWhy do these babies lose their rights while others retain theirs? What are the exceptions that change all (or any) of your points and do not create logical inconsistencies in and of themselves? How do points 9-11 still carry justice in these extreme circumstances? What are the medical reasons for abortion to save the mother? Today there are none that I can find.
I have two friends who have healthy babies born from rape (one from a drunk man and the other from a drug induced rape). They are married and the kids are normal and healthy. Also, adoption is always a viable option.
I understand that these "extreme cases" only make up 1% of the abortions performed but I believe that to remain logical and consistent you can't have it both ways.
-J
Believe me, I have wrestled with these very questions... they are tough.
ReplyDeleteUltimately this is what I have come to...
Neither of these cases contradicts personhood issues... they both regard the fetus as a person which is why the decision is a difficult one (and extremely rare).
Rape changes the justice dynamic because it is not the result of the person's choice.
For example - suppose a 15 year-old is raped and impregnated. You very easily could make the case that the 15 year-old's life would be more harmed by having to carry the child. (resolves the conflict of #9)
It is also not a result of her actions - and therefore she cannot be help responsible for them - so #10 is no longer applicable since neither party had responsibility.
11 does not really apply in the case of rape. If you feel it does and want to explain/expound, please do.
The bottom line, for me, is that rape is a terrible thing. The victim should not be forced to bear the consequences of the crime committed against her. Yes, many stories of children born to rape victims are out there. That's incredible. I still don't think the mother should be forced to go through with it.
As for the life of the mother. If the scenario arises (whatever it might be) in which the mother has or will have a high risk (for the sake of the argument, call it 75% chance) of life-threatening complications due to the pregnancy, I think she is justified.
#9 because death is the outcome on either side.
#11 doesn't apply because it's not a threat made by the woman.
The issue you may have is with #10. The question becomes should the mother be forced to go to term and risk her life?
I don't have a wife yet but my Dad told me that when I do, I will understand why this case should be allowed. I know that's an anecdotal support, but I think it's a good one.
The real issue is Biblical support. If there is Biblical refutation of either of these stances, I will change my belief.
“suppose a 15 year-old is raped and impregnated. You very easily could make the case that the 15 year-old's life would be more harmed by having to carry the child. (resolves the conflict of #9)”
ReplyDelete#9 States that “limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just”. The least harm is bluntly put “not death”. The largest medical statistic of a 15 year old dying from childbirth is .11% that I can find. The least harm medically and factually is always going to favor the baby unless the baby for some reason has some rare birth defect.
“It is also not a result of her actions - and therefore she cannot be help responsible for them - so #10 is no longer applicable since neither party had responsibility.”
#10 States that “the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it. “ First of all not all rape is not always never the girls fault (i.e. putting herself into the circumstances rape would be easily avoidable. Parties, alone with unknown guys without parents knowing, etc.). Secondly, if neither party had any responsibility why does the punishment land upon the unborn?
“As for the life of the mother. If the scenario arises (whatever it might be) in which the mother has or will have a high risk (for the sake of the argument, call it 75% chance) of life-threatening complications due to the pregnancy, I think she is justified.”
Again, medically this is never the case today. That argument might carry weight 60-70 years ago, but not today. Unless we are talking about 3rd world countries with very little medical training and supplies and even then the number is probably never over 75%. If you come to me with medical facts on how this would be a reason I will recant that argument.
The anecdotal support is a good one, yes. Making that call would be one of the most horrific things to go through in life for both the Mother and the Father. However, not logical.
As far as biblical backing I would point to a study by John Frame who actually admits, “The apparent need to kill an unborn child to save the life of the mother is perhaps the most plausible set of circumstances for a justified abortion. But is it in fact justifiable to kill one human being to save the life of another?”.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1972Law.htm
Is anybody else going to join us? I love this by the way. The last abortion debate I got into ended with “your dumb”. haha
I think the rape one does come down to opinion. And in my opinion, I think the compassionate thing to do is to allow it. I hate it when I hear "First of all not all rape is not always never the girls fault".
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is absolutely not the victim's fault in any shape or form. I couldn't possibly imagine being in that situation. It's perhaps the most heinous crime I can think of and forcing the victim to have a child they didn't want just doesn't seem right to me. Again, this is an extremely rare occurrence (impregnation from rape), but I struggle with it.
It doesn't matter if there isn't anything you can find about actual life of the mother conditions. IF there is a situation that arises as I described, I think it should be allowed. If it never happens, fine - no issue.
As for the question "is it in fact justifiable to kill one human being to save the life of another?" the simple answer is, "yes, it is." In a moral dilemma, where neither choice is desirable but one must be made, one is justified in making a choice provided they give it proper consideration and weigh the facts as much as possible.
Were we justified to drop nukes on Japan? Kill hundreds of thousands to possibly save hundreds of thousands more?
There are no easy answers to these types of questions.
I think that we are called to extreme compassion in cases of extreme moral difficulty.
We are not degrading the value of life if we allow abortion in these extremely rare cases. We are allowing for a terrible situation to possibly be made better by allowing another terrible thing.
I could never imagine being the one to tell a young girl who was raped that she had to carry a child she never wanted. It just doesn't sit well with me and I have never found or heard a Biblical argument against it.
So, I will chance on the side of compassion, and allow the victim or person in the situation to make the choice.
We are in complete agreement that this crime is the most sickening sins to even think about let alone go through. I recant my statement saying it's not always never their fault. That was an emotional, manipulative, illogical and very non-compassionate thing to say. I would never say that to a victim. Please forgive me.
ReplyDeleteLast thoughts. If you side with abortions for rape victims you now are faced with even more hard questions like when can abortions be done? Should partial birth be allowed?
I also don't feel like I am not compassionate when siding with not having an abortion. I am not degrading the life of the mother when not wanting abortions in these rare rape cases. In my research, combined with first hand witnesses on both sides of the fence (friends who have been raped and had abortions and friends who have been raped and not had abortions), I have come to the conclusion that abortions bring more long term psychological AND physiological damage on a raped mother than having the baby and giving it up for adoption. So that's why in my mind it is more compassionate to not allow abortions.
Allowing a terrible situation to possibly be made better by allowing another terrible thing logically fits perfectly with my side as well. I don't claim this belief to be easy or simple in any way. And just because I believe this way doesn't mean it sits well with me either. I hope you know that.
I believe Frame as well as others have done a great job on defending the issue Biblically. The theological arguments are as vast as the logical arguments we are cramming in this post.