Is Abortion a Moral Right or Morally Wrong: Answering Objections

Rape

Bringing up the issue of rape in pro-life discussions tends to be a common phenomenon. In my own personal experience of interacting with people who support abortion rights for a woman, almost ninety percent of them appealed to cases of rape to support a right to an abortion for a woman. The argument from rape would seem to go something like this:

·                    

                                 A woman, who has been traumatized by rape, will be emotionally scarred if she is forced to carry her pregnancy to term in being reminded of her experience.

·                              It is morally wrong to force a woman, who has been traumatized by rape, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

·                            Therefore, prohibiting a woman from having an abortion, who has been traumatized by rape, is morally wrong.

     How would an advocate of abortion rights defend this argument? Let’s examine each of the premises. Premise 1 seems undeniable on its face and seems plausible in its own right. Women who were raped already have suffered deep, emotional trauma from that experience. It seems implausible to think that it would be easy emotionally to give birth to someone who reminds her of her experience. To deny that would seem to trivialize the woman’s experience, which is entirely unjustified.

     What about premise two? It claims that it is morally wrong to force a woman, who has been traumatized by rape, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. It undoubtedly has powerful emotional appeal but is it true? I do not think so for at least two reasons. First, it obviously begs the question towards the non-humanity of the unborn. As horrific as rape is, let us consider an analogy, which will clarify why this premise is fallacious.

     

    Suppose a girl named Allison gave birth to a baby girl and named her Grace. Grace grows up to be 3 years old. The father of Grace is the man who raped her and worse, was her best friend. Allison has battled with depression and suicidal thoughts ever since the rape and has not gotten over it. She finally decides she cannot deal with looking at her daughter anymore, since she is reminded of that experience. Would Allison be justified in killing her three year old so that she can feel better? Hardly so. Unless one begins with the assumption that the unborn are not human beings, one cannot justifiably defend a woman’s right to have an abortion, even when she has been raped since they would not consistently apply that reasoning to a killing three year old.

      Second, the expression “forcing the woman to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term” does not capture the facts of a much broader picture. Generally speaking people, who defend abortion rights for a woman who was raped, claim that the woman is too emotionally unstable to raise the child and provide it with the nurture and care it deserves. It is not obviously true that “forcing” a woman, to give birth to someone conceived in rape, constitutes an imposition on her to care for the child permanently or even to raise her. There is less cost to giving birth to someone conceived in rape than raising and caring for that child.

Aside from the superficiality of this argument, there is an important question to be raised that will clarify the issue and will distinguish two kinds of people. To borrow this question from Scott Klusendorf, how must we treat innocent human beings who remind us of painful events? Since it has been argued – and hopefully demonstrated – that the unborn are part of the human community, it follows that they are part of the picture and must not be disregarded. It must be emphasized that rape is no small of an issue for a woman to deal with. I cannot personally attest to the trauma and horror a woman feels after being raped. However, we must not swiftly assume that only the woman has rights in this issue. Yes it was only the woman who was wronged but it does not follow that only the woman has rights. The unborn has rights because he is a human being endowed with intrinsic value. Caring for the unborn child and the mother seems like the most plausible solution.

Now some might object to this by saying that caring for the unborn child and mother in being the most plausible solution is only true to the one who (1) already believes the unborn is a human being and (2) who has not personally encountered that situation. In other words, if you defend the pro-life position in this issue, it’s only true for you but not true for the person who defends a woman’s right to an abortion. Truth might possibly be relative.

There are three factors to keep in mind. First, it has already been argued and hopefully demonstrated that the unborn is a human being. I have not merely asserted that the unborn is a human being but have presented arguments and evidence for that claim. To claim it’s merely an assertion on my part is to not deal with the arguments I have presented and does nothing to refute my claim about the unborn. Second, while it is true that I cannot personally attest to how a woman feels when she has been raped, it does not follow that I have no ability to make moral judgments about what she can or cannot do. The claim is that in order for me to make a moral judgment – moral praise or blame - regarding someone’s actions, I have to have been able to walk in their shoes or attest to their experiences.

If this were a valid criterion then certain absurdities would result: (1) Ordinary citizens who have never held a political office can’t speak to a President’s actions as morally wrong because they have never been President; (2) People who have never been parents cannot, for themselves, speak to the actions of any parents as morally wrong (even for parents who abuse their children); and (3) This objection can be turned on its own head because if the person, who defends a woman’s right to have an abortion because of being raped, is neither a woman nor has ever been raped cannot speak to what the woman should or can do. Why not? Because he or she has never been raped! So by their own standards, they cannot speak to whether a woman can have an abortion or not. But this is absurd. People make moral judgments all the time whether they are aware of it or not. The question is not whether we make them but whether they are correct moral judgments.

And third, as I clarified in the beginning, claiming that this is a matter of “true for you, but not for me” confuses claims regarding preference and morality. Claims about preference can perfectly be true for some and not for others. For example, some like chocolate ice cream and some prefer vanilla ice cream. Others might prefer a massage session on a Saturday afternoon than going to the pool. Numerous examples could be given to illustrate how preferential claims are flexible and are not binding on anyone.

But moral claims are not like this for at least two reasons. First, one can improve in his or her character by the result of certain morally relevant choices. Likewise one can degenerate in his moral qualities because of certain choices he or she makes. For example, suppose I wanted to develop the quality of patience. If I lost my temper nearly every time I had a chance to exercise patience, my flaw in that area would increase over time. In fact it would bring certain costs to my life that would have broader implications. It might cost me a job (for losing my cool too many times at a fellow employee), a relationship (being too pushy for him or her to improve in certain areas), or even the possibility of further growth itself. One does not degenerate or become more virtuous in his preferential choices. I do not improve my character by choosing to play a video game instead of watching a cartoon. For this reason, preferential choices are not identical to moral choices.

Second, moral claims are truth claims or propositions. There is a principle in logic called the Principle of Bivalence, which states that any given proposition must be either true or false. A proposition is basically an assertion that can be falsified. A proposition can be shown to be false if it contradicts empirical observations or contains a contradiction. Moral claims such as “It is wrong to torture babies for fun”, “Using people as means to an end is wrong”, and “ Killing a defenseless human being is wrong” are all propositions and hence must be dealt with on the basis of moral intuitions and arguments. To claim that moral statements are mere personal opinions is to resort to an outmoded epistemology (theory of knowledge) known as Verificationism.

Verificationism was a theory of knowledge that was championed by the famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and others known as the Logical Positivists. The theory basically claimed that for a statement to be meaningful (that is capable of being proven true or false) it has to be verifiable by the scientific method or five senses. If a statement failed that criterion, then it was not merely false but just a garble of words. This principle eliminated metaphysical, theological, aesthetic, moral, and even scientific beliefs. It has barely any representatives on the contemporary scene – with the exception of Alex Rosenberg - and was later rejected for two reasons. First, it was far too restrictive in what it considered to be real knowledge. Adopting this principle would require cutting out the vast majority of beliefs people generally hold to in everyday life. But second, even worse, this principle was self-refuting. The statement “All statements not verified by the five senses are meaningless” is not itself verifiable by the five senses. There is no empirical test that one could run to verify that statement as true. So, by its own criterion, it itself is meaningless!

So claiming it is my own opinion that the unborn are human beings is unjustified and unwarranted. Second, while it is true that I cannot personally attest to how a woman feels when she has been raped, it does not follow that I have no ability to make moral judgments about what she can or cannot do. And third, claiming that this is a matter of “true for you, but not for me” confuses claims regarding preference and morality.