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.

Is Abortion a Moral Right or Morally Wrong: The Pro-Life Case

So what exactly is the unborn? Can we gain any meaningful information from embryology regarding what the unborn is? I believe we can. Let me clarify what embryology is. It is the study of the beginning and developmental process of the human embryo from the moments of fertilization till death. Contrary to popular opinion, it is without dispute when human life originates with respect to embryologists. Let me mention one major textbook that is widely used in medical schools. In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 8^th edition by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, they document the following regarding the question of when human life originates: “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell, a zygote, into a multicellular human being.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 8^th edition, P. 2, Para. 1).

Moreover, on the same page in the terminology section, a zygote is simply defined as the beginning of a new human being, which would reiterate the earlier point. In his article “Embryology: Inconvenient Facts”, William Saunders cites a major textbook indicating the clarity as to when human life originates when he writes, “Human development begins at fertilization…. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (P. 1, Para. 3). There are other quotations that confirm this. Saunders contends, “Every human being begins as a single-cell zygote… Each human being is genetically the same human being at every stage, despite changes in his or her appearance.” (P.1, Para. 2)

First, it should be recognized that the human embryo contains its own unique genetic structure independent of the mother and father. When the male sperm and female egg unite, they form an ovum, which marks the beginning of the developmental process. Different chromosomes from the sperm and egg merge together and form a unique, whole living human being. Another fact to consider is that the embryo is capable of guiding its own internal development from the inside out. Even though it will undergo changes in its appearance and development, it will not change into another entity through the developmental process. As Scott Klusendorf points out, human embryos are clearly human beings because they are the offspring of their human parents and have the “genetic constitution characteristic of human beings.” (The Case for Life, P. 37, Para. 5).

In short, it is clear from the facts of embryology that the human embryo is a distinct, whole, and living human being. Maureen Condic, a professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah, states why assigning humanity to the unborn is a scientific matter and nothing else, “Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death” the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells.” (Life: Defining the Beginning by the End, P. 6, Para. 3). The facts of embryology are clear: the human embryo from fertilization onward is a distinct, whole, and living human being. Anyone, who questions these facts, does not represent the conclusions of the majority of embryologists on this issue.

But is the human embryo a person endowed with intrinsic value? By advocating the substance view of persons and the acronym SLED – which stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency - I will argue that the unborn human embryo is a person who cannot be justifiably killed through an abortion procedure. First, what is the substance view of human persons? The substance view of human persons is essentially the view that human beings are persons in virtue of the kind of thing they are, not in virtue of their abilities. It is the fact you are a human being that gives you value in the first place. Moreover, preserving self-identity over time is a real fact of life according to this view. For example, even though I have changed in height, weight, and level of intelligence, I am the same person now that I was at the age of 14. So the substance view of human persons is the claim that (1) It is our nature that grounds our being a person and that (2) identity over time is preserved, not lost, despite changes in various factors. This view of human persons can be traced all the way back to Thomas Aquinas and has contemporary defenders as well. For example, Francis J. Beckwith defends the substance view of persons in his book “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal case against abortion choice”. Philosophers J.P. Moreland and ethicist Scott Rae also defend it in their book “Body and Soul”.

Now let us apply this reasoning to the pro-life issue. Klusendorf asserts, “ You were the same being then as you are now, though your functional abilities and physical characteristics have changed. From the moment you began to exist, there’s been no substantial change in your essential nature. Moreover, you are intrinsically valuable in virtue of being you, not in virtue of some attribute you acquire at some point, such as nice looks, intelligence, etc. Thus, if you are intrinsically valuable now, you were intrinsically valuable at the embryonic stage as well. “(The Case for Life, P. 50, Para. 4 & P. 51, Para. 1) Another point can be made to clarify what we mean when we say that human beings have intrinsic value. In ethics, which is the branch of philosophy that investigates moral principles in various ways, there are usually two different kinds of value: intrinsic and instrumental. Intrinsic value, as I clarified, is the value for simply being what it is. Instrumental value, by contrast, is the value that gains its value from how it can be used for certain things or purposes. Something that has instrumental value only has value in as far as how it can be used for a certain end or purpose. Examples of this would be hammers, trucks, chairs, and even companies. Their existence isn’t what gives them value but what they can produce or well they function is what gives them value. If their level of functionality worsens, then so does their value.

By contrast human beings, according to the substance view, are not like this. Human beings have value simply for who they are. It would be morally wrong to use them as means to a certain end. This is a fact that virtually everyone affirms, even those who use other people for their own gains. If people’s value were instrumental and not intrinsic, then using them for our own gains or redefining their value to accommodate our self-pleasures and desires would not be morally wrong. One more reason why one ought to accept the substance view of persons, which grounds intrinsic value, is because it can ground human equality. It is commonly said that everyone ought to be treated equally. But what justifies this? Since everyone differs from each other in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, the obligation to treat everyone equally cannot be based on those factors. So what is it? It must be because everyone shares a common human nature regardless of those other factors.

The acronym SLED is helpful in our understanding of what it means to argue for the moral, intrinsic worth of each human being. It stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency. How does this apply to the pro-life position? Put simply, there is no essential moral difference between the human embryos we all once were and the adults we are now that would justify killing us at those prior stages of development. A simple argument illustrating this principle will go something like this:

Ø  Unborns, infants, and toddlers have different sizes, levels of development, come from different environments, and have different degrees of dependency.

Ø  Killing someone at an earlier stage of development based on the properties in SLED is morally wrong.

Ø  Since those changes apply to newborns, infants, and toddlers as well as human embryos and fetuses, it follows that those changes cannot be used to justify killing the unborn but sparing the infants and toddlers.

In simple terms, bigger people are not more valuable than smaller people, smarter people are not more valuable than less intelligent people, where people are does not determine who they are, and people more dependent on their parents are not less valuable than people who are more independent. People are intrinsically valuable regardless of their sizes, levels of development, environments, and degrees of dependency. To deny this would inevitably deny everyone human equality.

Is Abortion a Moral Right or Morally Wrong: What is the issue?

It is absolutely critical that the issue dividing the pro-life and pro-abortion advocates be clarified and not muddled by irrelevancies. As author Scott Klusendorf points out in The Case for Life, “If you think a particular argument for elective abortion begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, here’s how to clarify things: Ask if this particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes that the unborn are not fully human.” (The Case for Life, P. 25, Para. 1). With that being said, the issue needs to be about the humanity or personhood status of the unborn. Since hardly anybody appeals to economic conveniences, or rights to privacy to justify killing infants and toddlers, to appeal to those circumstances in the case of abortion is to assume the unborn are not human persons. Let me give an illustration that can help clarify this. Bob and Debbie are hanging out over coffee and the topic of abortion comes up in the conversation. Debbie says, “I think the woman should be allowed to have an abortion because what if she can’t raise the child due to her economic situation?” Bob doesn’t think that reason is good enough. “But it’s wrong to have an abortion because you are killing a child. Don’t you think that’s something the woman should consider?” Debbie, however, wasn’t very impressed with Bob’s question. She kept insisting that the woman should not be prevented from having an abortion because it was her body and her rights.

Now what was Debbie’s underlying assumption when she said that women should be permitted to have an abortion due to financial issues? She was assuming that the unborn was not a human being without giving any argument for it. This is called begging the question. In logic, when one begs the question, he or she is assuming the very thing they are trying to prove or frontloading a hidden assumption without defending it. In philosophical issues, every assumption is open for questioning and no one is exempt.

Here is how that assumption can be exposed. Debbie tells Bob, “It’s not your place to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It’s a fundamental right to being a woman to have an abortion.” Now suppose Bob were to turn around and say, “Alright. Let’s imagine that I have a two-year-old girl who has terrible health issues and has cost us great financial distress. We are considering on killing her in the privacy of our home. It’s nobody’s place to tell us what we can do with our two year old.” Debbie will have to say that she is opposed to that because she generally believes, along with most people, that the toddler is a human being. But what was Bob’s point here? He was exposing her hidden assumption that she was not defending: that the unborn is a not a human being. Since Debbie would not use the same reasons, she gave for abortion, for killing an infant, newborn, or toddler, it follows that the real issue is not the mother’s poverty but what the unborn is.

Or sometimes you might hear someone say the following to a pro-lifer, "Don't like abortion. Don't have one." The reduction of the issue of abortion to choosing between different preferences has become too common in our culture. People quite readily are oft bent on making the abortion debate a debate over one's own personal and private preferences. What exactly is wrong with the above line? Well there are at least 3 problems with it. First, it does not take into account what the pro-life advocate is actually claiming. Pro-life advocates are not saying they dislike abortion. They are saying that abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent and defenseless human being. So reducing the topic of abortion to matters of taste is to fail to understand what exactly is being claimed here. Second, the person saying that also fails to understand the difference between preference and moral claims. Preference claims are simply descriptions of a person's state of what they like or dislike. It has little or nothing to do with what they ought or ought not do. 

Statements like "I like chocolate ice cream", "Gummy bears taste better than teddy grahams", or "Apple pie is better than lemon pie" are all preference claims. There isn't any demand or obligation that you could infer from any of those statements. Most of us would probably think it would be odd if I were to say "You're wrong for liking chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream" because we all intuitively realize that the contents in that claim are purely preference based. Third, the statement - if meant to be an argument for abortion choice - is a bad argument because it begs the question. The statement is true only if the unborn are not human beings. But that is precisely the topic of the debate! In fact, if the unborn are not human beings, you don't need the argument!

So in conclusion, the central issue in abortion is whether the unborn is a human being or a person. This is supported by the fact that most – if not all – reasons given to support abortion are question begging and do not address the real issue. The purpose of using a toddler as an example is not to argue that the toddler is a human being but to address the real issue. With that being said, let us turn to whether the pro-life case is sound or not.

Is Abortion a moral right or morally wrong - Part 1

The pro-life position, in establishing a case the for humanity, personhood, and intrinsic value of the unborn, based on scientific and philosophical reasoning, is arguably rationally and morally justified. By contrast the abortion-choice position ultimately lacks substance in establishing the claim that a woman has a right to an abortion, which entails killing a human embryo or fetus prior to being born.

Are there any good or compelling reasons to think that abortion is morally wrong or is it a matter of subjective judgment? Whose side of the debate is supported by the evidence and can be defended cogently in the face of objections? In this blog series I will defend five contentions. First, I will clarify the real issue in the abortion debate. Second, I will argue that the unborn is intrinsically valuable as a human person, through science and philosophy, and that killing it through an abortion procedure is morally wrong. Third, I will address popular level objections to the pro-life position from scientific and philosophical angles. Fourth, I will address the crucial arguments against the pro-life position from Judith Thomson, David Boonin, and others and attempt to show why they fail to succeed. And fifth, I will address one particular objection that could undermine the entire abortion debate for both sides of the issue.

Judith Thomson argues in A Defense of Abortion that a woman has the right to an abortion based on two considerations and analogies she gives: the violinist and the right to self-defense. Consequently her argument stresses the point that a woman has the right to defend her body against a fetus that endangers her life – resulting in an abortion – and has the right to withhold bodily support from the fetus that will result in its death, even while granting the pro life claim that the unborn is biologically a human being, is a person, and has a right to life. Additionally, David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion that the fetus must obtain, what he calls, organized cortical brain activity that will enable the fetus to have desires and hence a right to life. Abortion is morally justified prior to the fetus’ acquiring cortical brain activity.

It is not the goal of this blog series to provide indubitable proofs for either side since absolute certainty is virtually impossible to attain in most areas of life. Rather the goal is to present a case that is scientifically and philosophically defensible enough to withstand some of the strongest objections to the pro-life position.

Before I begin, there are some preliminary comments I need to make so as to clarify what I will and will not be arguing in this paper. First, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it. I am here to discuss reasons that I think are persuasive why I am morally opposed to abortion. Second, I will only present arguments that I have found persuasive and have studied in some detail. There are many other arguments for and against abortion choice that will not be covered in this paper.

There are essentially two stances, morally speaking, that one can take on this issue: either abortion is morally justified or it is not. There is no third alternative. Pro-life advocates claim that killing a defenseless human being is morally wrong and that abortion does that. They argue that on the basis of the unborn as a human person who is intrinsically valuable. Abortion rights advocates argue possibly two views: (1) Abortion is always acceptable at any stage during pregnancy; (2) Abortion is acceptable at certain stages of pregnancy but not others when the fetus has acquired certain levels of development (viability) or self-awareness that qualifies it as a person with a right to life (i.e. past 20 weeks of gestation). Philosopher and defender of abortion rights David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion in support of # 2.

Anti-abortion or pro-life advocates are opposed to #1 and #2. Both sides could be wrong. We may never know the human, personhood, and moral status of the unborn. But neither side can be simultaneously right morally speaking because they contradict each other. Essentially, the primary difference between pro-life advocates and abortion rights advocates is their view of the unborn in virtue of what makes it a person. Abortion rights advocates are willing to grant the unborn are human beings but they would distinguish between human persons and human non-persons. A proponent of this distinction is Mary Anne Warren in her article On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion in the book The Problem of Abortion edited by Joel Feinberg. Pro-life advocates claim that the unborn is a person in virtue of the kind of nature it has, not in virtue of certain powers or properties it can gain or lose at any given moment (i.e. self awareness). Abortion rights advocates would defend Warren’s view. They cannot both be correct because their claims are contradictory. Hence, one must carefully evaluate both sides of the debate and decide which side has the most compelling arguments.

In summary, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it and I will only present the arguments that have persuaded me in this study.