I apologize if I appear to be indulging in controversy for controversy's sake, the reason that i felt the need to post on this topic is so as to create an outlet for the intense frustration I have been feeling when viewing material which attempts to engage with the abortion debate. I do not approach this topic as a lover of fetuses or as a lover of reproductive freedom but as a lover of precise and well conducted argument. Precise and well conducted argument is not something which I was faced with when i cast my eye over this topic and its media presence and, given the huge importance of decisions pertaining to abortion, I felt justified in feeling incredibly angered by this.
The very names 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' signify immediately the way in which these two opposing groups talk past each other and in doing so fail to properly engage with indisputably important issues. I cannot help but picture a diner at a restaurant who, on complaining about a large fly in his soup, is met with a lengthy lecture on the impeccable quality of the accompanying bread and butter. These are not two sides of one argument, but instead two sides of two different arguments, neither of which readily offer any solution to the other.
If resolution to this conflict is ever to be achieved then the first step must be to agree upon the morally relevant questions! Now, I am a self confessed moral skeptic. I don't believe in right and wrong in any normatively powerful sense, but I acknowledge that most others do not share my views. I wont go on here about the flimsy nature of ethics as a whole but will instead try to stick within the confines of a world where 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningful concepts. This could prove tricky but I'm gonna give it a go so bear with me.
Here are the most fundamental morally relevant questions of this debate as I see it
1. What is an embryo?
A lot of pro-life literature talks about the taking of innocent human life and the slaughter of babies whilst pro-choice arguments tend to employ terms like zygote. The employment of the term 'zygote' is demonstrably accurate and is also entirely neutral on the issue of the moral status of the object in question, although the clinical sounding nature of this word can lead to its being employed a a subtle implication that the object is non-living. 'Baby', on the other hand is an incredibly emotionally loaded term which contains within it the assumption that the object is living. The use of such terms in this context is often highly emotive and potentially distressing.
To my knowledge there are at this point in time NO UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR HUMAN LIFE and no conclusion about the living status of an embryo can be reasonably made until such conditions have been established. The question of when life begins has yet to be satisfactorily answered by anybody on either side of the debate.
- Forcing an individual to make enormous personal sacrifices for a dead piece of tissue seems like something that could be considered wrong. Even if this tissue had the potential to gain the status of a living human, it would still initially only have the status of a zygote and these are frequently and naturally destroyed without any mourning occurring.
- Killing a living human in the name of reproductive freedom, feminism or potential personal benefit seems like another action which has the potential to be considered morally reprehensible.
These are the two potential outcomes of incorrect beliefs about the status of embryos which I identify as having the potential to be considered morally dubious. As we currently have no informed method of forming beliefs about the status of embryos, and we need laws to govern abortion now, I believe the question that needs to be asked is that of which of these is the lesser evil.
2. Is forcing an individual to make enormous personal sacrifices for a dead piece of tissue always wrong?
Frankly I cannot imagine a circumstance in which this deprivation of personal freedom would not be considered wrong. To add an emotive element here I could relate stories of the terrible lives lead by many unprepared mothers and their children but I cannot see why this should be necessary. If there are factors I have failed to consider in my abrupt answer to this question I would of course be willing to consider them.
3. Is the destruction of human life always wrong?
This, I believe, is the crux of the matter and this is the point that the abortion debate needs to reach if it is to become constructive. the pro-life position on this question is quite clear, though the question of its validity remains important and an answer has by no means been settled upon. Any attempt to assert that an embryo definitely is a living human can most likely be dismissed unless an extremely good set of evidence is presented, but i'm sure that potential killing is something that these activists can become equally aggravated about. If the pro-choice group wish to engage with their opponents they need to acknowledge that they do not know whether or not abortion destroys human life and need to decide whether or not they are comfortable with the prospect of this occurring. If they are, they need to tackle head on the issue of why the destruction of human life in instances of abortion is acceptable.
I personally believe that exceedingly strong arguments exist to support the position that the destruction of human life is not intrinsically wrong and not wrong in all circumstances. These are not arguments which I will state here, now but they are arguments which I would beg the pro-choice movement to engage with. I might also suggest a name change.
The answers of others to the questions I have proposed may well be different from my own, but it is of greater concern to me that a well reasoned debate can be had than that one or other side should triumph. There is so much potential for constructive discussion once everyone reaches a point where they are asking and answering the same questions.
I'm sorry to go on so, but I really do care about reason.
L
xxx
