A Response to Pro-Choice Arguments #1: Choice is an Illusion
The first pro-choice view I’m going to address goes as follows:
“UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the government have any say in what a woman does with her body.”
I’ve also heard it argued like this:
“The whole abortion debate comes down to, ‘do you own yourself or does someone else own you?’”
Let me start with a little personal history:
My conviction about abortion came when I saw that first ultrasound of my 10-week-old baby in my womb, the unmoving, lifeless form of what could have been. The depth of my grief over my miscarriage surprised me. My feelings about abortion were solidified through three subsequent pregnancies that resulted in my three beautiful children. At any moment during any of those pregnancies, if someone had taken those children from my womb, I would have considered them a murderer. The violation of my body and personal rights in the process would be insignificant in comparison to the fact that my baby would be forever gone.
Just a few months after my last baby was born, my life was forever changed by a cancer diagnosis. The next day, I had to wean my baby girl. I didn’t have a choice. At a time when I desperately wanted to hold my children close, I was forced to push my baby away, to neglect her cries for food and comfort.
I recently heard a pro-choice advocate call a baby in the womb a “uterine tumor.”
I am familiar with tumors. Comparing an unborn baby to a tumor triggered a response in me, and one that is not sympathetic to the pro-choice point of view.
Let’s first define tumor:
A tumor is “an abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function; a neoplasm.”
Regardless of when you think a life becomes human, a fetus is not a tumor. Sadly, that is how many view it: Abnormal. Unwanted. No function. I suppose that the person who holds this pro-choice point of view believes that for something (or someone) to have value, it must also be able to function.
The pro-life camp argues that life begins at conception and therefore, abortion is murder. The pro-life camp naively believes that if they can only prove life begins in the womb, then the pro-choicer will concede that abortion should be illegal.
I propose that these pro-choicers, the ones who think a fetus is a tumor, are so passionate about their right to choose that the “humanness” of the fetus is irrelevant. And even if we could show that that life has value, even if we could show that abortion is morally wrong, it wouldn’t matter. For they believe that the mother’s right to choose what happens to her body is a stronger moral right than any right the fetus might be entitled to. They make no claim as to whether or not the fetus is a human life. It does not matter.
Let me reiterate. These are the people who say, “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the government have any say in what a woman does with her body.”
This view leads to the inevitable conclusion that a woman can abort her baby all the way up until birth. For that matter, she should be able to walk into her doctor’s office anytime after the fetus becomes viable and demand the doctor induce her or do a c-section (simply as a matter of convenience); even if that includes months in the NICU; even at great risk to the baby. It is her body, and her choice. Right?
I have to confess that when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, I cannot sympathize. I did not have a right to choose the cancer that invaded my body (a pregnant woman does have control over whether or not she gets pregnant). Nor did I have much of a right to choose as they put all those toxic chemicals in my body and my hair fell out and body parts were removed. Sure, you could say I had a choice, but when the alternative is death, it doesn’t really feel like a choice. Going through cancer treatment eliminated my feeling that my body is my own and that I have all these “rights” pertaining to it. I do have rights that should be protected by law, but they are minimal. My voice is laced with sarcasm as I say, “Oh, I’m so sorry your body will be uncomfortable and that your life will be inconvenienced for 9 whole months, and you might even end up with a C-section scar or stretch marks. That must be so difficult for you.” It is really simple: if you can’t handle a pregnancy, don’t have sex. I wish cancer were that simple. I wish I had that much of a choice.
The attitude of entitlement that permeates our culture is the core of many of our social problems. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to comfort. It does not guarantee us a life free from pain or difficulty. It does not guarantee us the right to avoid the consequences of our actions.
What is the role of the government in telling me what I can and can’t do with my body? I cannot use my body to murder another person. The government cannot force me to have medical treatment. They cannot force me to have immunizations. The government can restrict whom I have sex with (the other person must consent and must be over-age). The government can currently dictate what medical procedures the elderly can or can’t have (ask anyone on Medicare).
The government’s right to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body comes down to this: I cannot use my body to take away or violate someone else’s rights. And in some more controversial cases, I cannot use my body to hurt myself (drugs, suicide, prostitution, wearing seat belts).
Prohibiting abortion does not force someone to undergo a medical procedure. It only prevents a medical procedure that results in the death of another individual entity. They are not forcing the woman to do anything. The woman already made a choice that resulted in pregnancy – a natural, cause and effect process.
My conclusion is that it DOES matter whether or not the fetus is human. The mother’s right to “choose” is not a greater right than the rights of a dependent human life. There are circumstances where the government does have a say in what a woman does with her body.
A Response to Pro-Choice Arguments Introduction
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement “if you can’t handle a pregnancy, don’t have sex.” It’s a shame that we have a society now that fails to consider causality.
Where I struggle with your argument is with the definition of a “right”.
I was recently in a debate with an attorney about gun control and I tried to argue about unalienable rights such as right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as delineated in the Constitution. He pointed out that the only unalienable right that we have is the freedom of thought, and that’s only because we don’t currently have the technology to control it. Rights are created by law and can be taken by law, without regard to moral right and wrong.
This wasn’t something that I could argue. In the big picture, your rights mean nothing to people who have the ability to destroy you. It’s the might of the social construct (government) that can provide the real protection of those rights. I had to concede the point: a right exists in the context of law.
If rights exist only in the context of law, we have to consider what we’re actually debating when we present our abortion arguments. Are we debating legal rights or are we debating morality? Are we trying to convert our morality into laws? Are we trying to change the morality of the social group?
Questions like these are what drive me away from government as a solution to the moral challenges we face in society. When you equip a tool like government to force your moral positions on other people, you give that government the power to force other peoples’ moral positions on you. While it may seem like a fetus should have a right to life to you (and to me!), what’s the cost of creating the entity that can create and protect that right?
I don’t want other people to control how I live and how I parent. And I don’t want to tell other people how they live and how they parent. Any case where one side of that exists and the other doesn’t is tyranny, of which I want no part. Because of this, I cannot support legislation based on morality.
Excellent points!
I think all human rights stem from the belief that human life is intrinsically valuable. If you deny that, then there certainly is no right to life. We are no different than animals, and there is nothing morally wrong with killing one another. Our belief in the inherent value of life, in the context of this blog, is based upon our Biblical worldview and the knowledge that we are created in the image of our creator.
You are right in the sense of inalienable meaning “can’t be taken away.” Clearly, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be taken away. I think the claim is that they shouldn’t be taken away – in any government or any social construct. Each person should be able to live freely. The purpose of government is to protect these rights. I use that word government very loosely. It is easy to say OUR government shouldn’t be determining morality and protecting these rights, but inevitably, if we don’t come together in some way and protect them (using the might of the majority), then someone who does not value these rights will be stronger and will be able to violate them.
You have identified my frustration when people say, “Don’t force your beliefs on me!” The bottom line is that most laws (and all our assumptions about rights) are based on morality. I don’t think you can separate the two. The obvious question is, “What is the basis for that morality, individually and as a society?” Historically, the laws and morality of our nation have been based on a Judeo-Christian tradition of morality and our laws have reflected that. Recently (in the last 50 or so years), there has been a dramatic shift away from that tradition, leaving us no agreed upon standard to base our laws. So everyone, in some sense, is trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. Having an agreed upon standard (whether it be religious, utilitarian, Kantian Ethics, etc.) does not necessarily mean that everyone has to buy into that belief system comprehensively. Within a moral standard, there is certainly room for freedom to practice other belief systems. They just have to remain within the moral constraints of the agreed upon standard.
It seems that we (as a nation) can’t agree upon basic human rights (in this case, the right to life). So I assert that the Biblical standard for morality is not only correct but it is more desirable than any other moral system (for humans) because of it’s emphasis on the inherent value of life, freedom and equality. That said, this is not the focus of this blog post.
Can we just agree, for the sake of argument (and because it is beneficial to humanity) that the right to life is something worth fighting for…not just selfishly, but for those who can’t fight for themselves? And currently our government is the primary tool we have.
I’m glad we get a chance to talk intrinsic value of life. As you know, I don’t subscribe to the Christian (or even Biblical) worldview, but that doesn’t mean that I believe that human life has no intrinsic value!
Where my perspective diverges is in the context of that life. In my worldview, your life is your property and it has value to you. The value of your life to me is irrelevant unless I am seeking to buy or sell you. Likewise, the value of your other property is irrelevant to me unless I am seeking to buy or sell it. The exception, and where law (justice) comes into play, is when I damage or plunder your property (including you). This is an appropriate use of a social construct to mediate. My ideal role for the “government” is solely for the purpose of defining and protecting property rights, and it should be voluntary participation.
As much as the anti-theists want to revise history, the fact is that the United States was founded on Christianity. There was no separation of church and state. There was merely the first amendment’s position that congress will not make laws respecting or impeding religion. This was a bunch of flap and we ended up with law books full of morality enforcement. We still don’t have separation of church and state and we never will.
I will concede that if we are going to have a moral standard, I would much prefer the Judeo-Christian ones to Shariah Law or mob rule. However, I think any moral standard is undesirable. I will also concede that not everyone has to buy into it… just enough people with the firepower to force the rest to comply.
I’m willing to fight to protect life. But I don’t think I should be able to force other people to fight for my beliefs. I suspect this will prevent my ideals from ever coming to fruition.
Where do children fall into that? Are they their own property or the property of their parents? And if they are the property of their parents, when do they become their own property and how do you make that determination?
It’s not our problem. They need to work that out themselves.
For me to justify that I can raise my children my way, I have to acknowledge that other parents can raise their children their way. For my children, they own themselves when they can take care of themselves. That’s pretty much the concept of dependence. Much like when we’re dependent on government.
I hope you two don’t mind me getting in the conversation here to get a clarification. I’m thoroughly enjoying the exchange. It’s wonderful! I don’t quite understand the statement . ‘My ideal role for the “government” is solely for the purpose of defining and protecting property rights, and it should be voluntary participation.’ If the role of the government is to protect property rights, how can that be voluntary? I like that you brought in worldview because it does come down to that. A christian worldview would differ in that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Someone else’s life should be relevant to us even above buying or selling.
Hi Jane, of course you’re welcome to join!
By voluntary, I mean that I have the option of opting in or out of the system. If I want the services and protection of the social construct, I can participate. If I don’t, I’m not required to do so. The free market is a voluntary social construct. The government is an involuntary social construct with mandatory participation enforced through the threat of violence.
A key point here is that I am not opposed to social constructs. If our government services were optional, I would likely participate and pay for many of them. A social construct that existed for the purpose of defining property rights and protecting them would have my support without a moments hesitation.
You’re right in that it does come down to worldview. I have a pretty good understanding of the Christian and Jewish worldviews (they are radically different from each other, and both are radically different from mine). There is a lot of value there, but I fear that it’s too easy to get caught up in the “I’m right and you’re wrong” mentality.
Oh, that clears it up a bit. I actually hadn’t thought of government that way. Very interesting perspective I’m going to have to ponder a bit. And for us to have such different worldviews, I agree with you more times than not.
Steph,
You are amazing. I love the beauty in your journey. Thanks for sharing your heart with us all!
The thing I always think about is that if the woman is forced to carry the pregnancy the child is unlikely to come into the world with a good start. If one is forced to carry it, where is the motivation to stop drinking/doing drugs/smoking or even less odious but still potentially harmful acts to the fetus such as eating soft cheese, sushi, consuming caffeine? Where is her motivation to take natal vitamins? Where is her motivation to bother taking care of herself for the not yet born baby that she has no interest in but is forced to carry? Maybe it is a sore point because I know two FAS children. They were adopted into wonderful families and one stays over often, and I adore them, but they will never be independent, never progress past a certain point, and it is because of the negligence of a woman who carried them. There are likely to be many more situations like that if the woman is FORCED into carrying something SHE sees as a tumor, whatever anyone else’s opinions are.
Hi CitySnacks! Thanks for your comment!
I assume since you are engaging in discussion with me that you take the pro-choice view that even if the fetus is a valuable human (in the same sense as you and I) that it is still okay to abort – in particular in cases where the mother will not take proper care of her unborn fetus. More strongly stated: abortion should be legal (regardless of the status of the fetus) BECAUSE of cases where women won’t take adequate care of the fetus. I have to ask…what about all the women who abort who would have taken proper care of their unborn baby? Should those mothers have the legal right to kill their children because of the possibility of other children having birth defects?
Your emphasis on the phrase “the woman is forced to carry the pregnancy” is somewhat misleading. A woman makes a choice that results in a pregnancy. It is a cause and effect relationship. She has sex. She gets pregnant. It was her choice. No one forces her to get pregnant. So phrasing it that way implies that the situation is out of her control and she has no responsibility for her actions.
I think it is reprehensible that women do things during pregnancy that cause damage to their children.
I also think it is reprehensible that women kill their unborn children.
One does not justify the other. Nor should one be a solution for the other.
You are arguing that it is okay to do one morally wrong thing (murder) in order to prevent another (possible birth defects).
If it is okay to kill the baby with FAS before it is born, why not after? Your reasoning applies to either case.
Parents make bad choices that effect their children. That doesn’t make it morally okay for them to kill their children.
That said, abortion is not the only possible solution for this problem (granted, we will never be able to prevent all of these cases, via abortion or any other means). I agree that it is a problem and it is very, very sad. There are other ways to provide help for women in these situations – just not through killing their babies.
I hope I didn’t come across too harshly. I applaud you for assisting in caring for and loving two children with FAS! I know that must be very difficult, and I certainly don’t intend to minimize the struggles associated with circumstances like your friends’. It is for this reason that I generally do not argue about cases of babies having SEVERE birth defects (see my note on my last post). This is borderline and I did not anticipate an argument phrased quite this way. I genuinely plead with you to forgive me if anything I said was hurtful.
CitySnacks,
I want to pick up the baton here where Steph L. has left it regarding children with birth defects in relation to abortion. We at The Civic Arena subscribe to a worldview that admits we humans don’t have complete and absolute control over our circumstances. In this post, Steph L. illustrated this perfectly with her cancer diagnosis. No control. No choice.
In fact, we don’t believe it is morally right to try and control ours or everyone else’s situation. When comparing the options of carrying a pregnancy and terminating it, abortion is clearly the UNNATURAL thing to do. And there is no forcing about it. I cannot control whether or not the mother-to-be will take prenatals, I cannot monitor her sushi or alcohol consumption. Neither can (or should!) the government. (Obviously there are things we can control through our attitude, response, work ethic, etc. but that doesn’t pertain to this debate).
I feel that Steph has addressed the illogical nature of your stance very well. But I would like to say that aborting babies because of a birth defect or a prenatal diagnosis is just as abhorrent as aborting a healthy baby. One of the reasons is because you start playing with eugenics. And then once you do that, where do we draw lines? Which babies get to live? Which get to die? And who gets to decide? If there is no moral anchor, like “it’s wrong to kill innocent human life,” then the decisions about who lives and who dies are left up to the whims of a selfish and entitled culture, and really, nobody is safe.
The truth is that there is one side of this debate that is intent on controlling everything. A pro-choice mother-to-be wants to “control” whether or not she has the baby. A pro-choice mother-to-be wants to “control” what KIND of baby she has (no birth defects!) And a pro-choice mother-to-be wants to “control” when she has babies (I’m just not ready for a baby right now, I am at the height of my career.) And believe it or not, the new fad is a pro-choice mother-to-be who wants to control the gender of her baby (I already have two girls, I want a boy.) These are real scenarios and in fact, when you look at the numbers they are MORE real than the down and out woman who *might* damage her baby with bad health decisions.
We on the prolife side do not want to control women. We want women to learn to accept their situation, whether they caused it or not, and learn to trust God through it, learn to grow from it, and learn to be a better person because of it. And we want what is a natural and beautiful thing (pregnancy) to be left alone just like God (or Mother Nature or whatever you believe in) intended it to be.
So when you say a woman is “forced” to have a baby, it is extremely misleading. I believe it is a phrase that was likely born out of a desire to draw attention away from the real desire to control our circumstances when it should be impossible to do so.
Thank you for contributing and despite being in absolute disagreement with you, I, like Steph, applaud you for loving on and caring for disabled children. The world is a better place because of your love for them.
- Steph N.
Well written Steph, I love how you break it down and make it an easy read, and yet make us thing at the same time.
Well said both of you Stephanies.
Completely agree…
Adbrinton, I have a question for you (maybe I’m not understanding your ideas of government properly?). If government is voluntary…i.e. you get protected when you pay for it/participate, how in the world is that enforced? Do you have a portion of the city that is under protection, and part of the city that is not? Wouldn’t that create total anarchy and much more of the city that is more like the slums in crime rate, etc? Part of the city is part of the United States, and part is their own entity? Help me out here. Very interesting ideas, though! Thanks for stretching my brain.
reliz23, I was actually asking myself the same question as I was thinking on Aaron’s ideal government. I’m interested to hear this:)
Hi reliz32,
I don’t think it needs to be enforced. Enforcement suggest some entity that’s overseeing the process. It’s this entity that I’m challenging. If you take the term “government” out of the discussion and think of it as a social construct (like a homeowners association), it’s much easier to grasp.
We’ve been conditioned to think that we need to be governed. We can have many of the benefits of social organization without centralization of power.
I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to challenge the United States. The founders of this country argued many of these same issues (available in the federalist and anti-federalist papers). It wasn’t until the Civil War that the federal government became a national government. My ideal government is more along the lines of what we had in the beginning.
Both of the quotations used to represent this particular pro-choice argument are problematic. I know some pro-choicers actually talk this way, but….
Nobody really literally believes that a woman can (or should be able to) do anything she wants with her body. That would mean she’s free to have it shoot up an elementary school. And the idea that my relationship with my body is literally one of ownership is preposterous. It has been thought in some times and places that living human bodies (or people) can be owned possessions, but such a view is antithetical to how we nowadays think about them, whether we’re pro-life or pro-choice. If a woman owns her body, she could sell it (and I don’t mean just rent it out for the evening). And we don’t own our children or their bodies. “My own body” is like “my own children,” it does not denote ownership. I think the real core of this pro-choice argument is that decisions about what goes on within the confines of one’s own body, in particular decisions about the applications of moral principle, should be made by oneself. And the application of that principle is given priority over disputed claims as to whether the fetus is the kind of being to which the same principle should be applied.
Also, I would like to say that lots of people who use this pro-choice argument DO believe that the moral status of the fetus matters, with most of them probably disagreeing with pro-life claims about its status. I don’t recall ever hearing anyone say it’s murder to destroy a fetus but that it doesn’t matter. My point is that disregard for the question of the status of the fetus is not inherent to the line of argument under discussion.
I’m not responsible for the content of these comments, however, since they were written on an Android tablet.
Dr. Brinton, thanks for reading and commenting!!
The arguments themselves are problematic, and you have explained why so much more eloquently than I. You have always been generous in putting the best possible spin on people’s arguments, but I think you are probably unaware of the ridiculousness with which many pro-choice people argue (since you are pro-choice, you get to hear the ridiculous ways pro-life people argue).
All of the arguments I am addressing in these posts I have heard multiple times (in fact, they are the most common arguments), with people adamantly defending them, with that same phrasing. I’m just trying to point out how utterly ridiculous they are and I agree that most people don’t really think this way. They just don’t think through their beliefs enough to realize it.
I agree with you also in your assessment of the core of the argument. However, are you saying that the principle gets priority BECAUSE the status of the fetus is disputable? Because if you make the assertion that one principle takes priority over another, that is, the mothers right to apply moral principles to her body takes priority over the possible rights of the fetus, you are essentially disregarding the status of the fetus. Or you are saying, “As long as we don’t know the status of the fetus, then the mother’s right takes precedence.” (I will address this type of argument and the status of the fetus in another post)
I rarely hear a pro-choice proponent come right out and say, “The fetus isn’t human so it’s okay to kill it.” The emphasis is ALWAYS on choice, probably because they don’t want to back up their claim about the status of the fetus. Pro-choicers want to talk about choice, as is indicated by the label they identify with. Pro-lifers want to talk about when life begins, as is indicated by the label they identify with. Rarely will they converse with each other on the same topic. This is my attempt, as a pro-lifer, to bridge the gap and talk about choice and what it really means when they argue this way.
Steph N., I’m curious what you think since you argue with pro-choice people often. Do you think I am misrepresenting them? (at least the ones who argue this way)
People are often sloppy and careless in what they say, which is a main problem that you’re trying to addressin this series, right? Those who share their point of view interpret them charitably and so reinforce their way of speaking. This is one of the issues you’re addressing. But you’re doing it in relation to the substantive issue of abortion, by examining pro-choice arguments. The question there is whether a particular line of argument has force. How well the argument is typically stated is irrelevant. I wasn’t endorsing the argument and don’t have a strong opinion about it. I was pointing out that from the pro-choicer’s point of view, the authority of a woman over her her own body and what’s inside it is more obvious and less disputable than the moral status of a fetus. A counter-argument immediately comes to my mind, bur I’m on retainer as a representative of the pro-choice crowd.
Actually, my main point is to hopefully change someone’s mind about abortion. Second to that is helping people be more reasonable. And third is to provide a place for people to discuss abortion in a reasonable way; a place that isn’t filled with emotion and personal attacks.
It seems a bit intellectually dishonest to know a counterargument and not share it!
Nonetheless, I would prefer you not share it, because I will be hammering on this issue in a later post (in 2 weeks).
I do not want to be pro-life. I would sleep much better at night thinking 55 million blobs of tissue have been removed rather than knowing 55 million people have been killed. I have tried, personally, to formulate a strong pro-choice argument. I have gone to the pro-choice websites. I have gotten in discussions with pro-choice advocates, wanting to hear a good argument and wanting to be convinced. I have not found an even remotely strong, convincing argument to support their views. I’m really doing the best I can with what THEY give me.
As absurd as this particular pro-choice argument is, I reiterate that the problem is not in the phrasing.
Here’s an assessment of prominent third wave feminist Naomi Wolf’s view on abortion (from wikipedia):
“In publishing an article in The New Republic that criticized contemporary pro-choice positions, Wolf argued that the movement had “developed a lexicon of dehumanization” and urged feminists to accept abortion as a form of homicide and defend the procedure within the ambiguity of this moral conundrum. She continues, “Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die.” Wolf concluded by speculating that in a world of “real gender equality,” passionate feminists “might well hold candlelight vigils at abortion clinics, standing shoulder to shoulder with the doctors who work there, commemorating and saying goodbye to the dead.”"
Naiomi Wolf has her fans, I know, but I don’t think she’s representative of most pro-choice people who argue in terms of a woman’s authority over her own body. But I may need to be more careful about saying “nobody thinks that.”
On some level you may wish you could be pro-choice, but coming to that conclusion would put you in a pretty uncomfortable position. It would turn your world upside down.
Hmmm, what makes you say that having a pro-choice view would turn my world upside down? I don’t see that.
What would be the reaction of your friends and church community? Is being pro-choice a viable option within that community? Your change of opinion would not be regarded as merely an intellectual choice would it? Some pro-choice people are in a similar position. And some pro-life people are not. This is a digression, of course.
It is a digression, but a very interesting one. It is your perception that is interesting to me. I don’t feel like I need to be in complete agreement with my friends and church community. A change in fundamental beliefs would certainly change the nature of our relationship, but I don’t feel pressure to conform to their every belief.
In fact, I have many different friends with differing views on things and it doesn’t affect our friendship, even within my circle of Christian friends. Honestly, abortion rarely comes up in conversation, so I’m not completely sure that we do all agree. Like I said, my conviction about abortion didn’t form until after I was pregnant. Up until that point I was Christian, involved in a Christian community, and ambivalent (or maybe indifferent would be a better word) about abortion. Many of my beliefs have fluctuated over the years, yet my friendships remain constant.
Regardless, I like to think that I form my beliefs based on reliable methods of forming beliefs and certainly not on a desire to fit in. That seems rather childish. I have, at different times in my life, questioned all of my beliefs (even the ones I held most dear) regardless of what it cost me.
Steph L.,
I believe you are representing the argument rightly as it exists in discussions about abortion on an average American’s level. People who do not study logic and philosophy speak about abortion in these terms. (As do I since I have no training in logic at all.) And they do not stop to consider the absurdity of a claim like, “Nobody should tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body,” for all the reasons that Dr. Brinton and you have pointed out. The goal of a pro-lifer in this instance would be to show the absurdity of the claim in order to endear the pro-choicer to a more reasonable argument; and if a reasonable argument can’t be found, to embrace the pro-life position.
I want to add this article to the discussion about pro-choice people who either believe the fetus IS a person, and don’t care, or they don’t want to know for sure whether it is a person. I also submit for consideration, VP Joe Biden’s comment at the end of the VP debate last fall that he believes “life begins at conception,” but that it is a “woman’s right to choose,” regarding abortion. I believe the VP to be…well…not the smartest man in the room, but he IS still the VP, and I think his statement is indicative of a wider move toward admitting the fetus is human but the right to choose outweighs it.
Roe v. Wade says otherwise, as this article so disturbingly points out. My opinion is that the average pro-choice person believes the line about it not being human, they believe it is a blob of tissue. But the evidence that the leaders of the movement think that way is contrary. This is from NOW President, Kim Gandy. To me, proof that the pro-choice side cares not to know the status of the fetus because they don’t want to give up the right to an abortion. Is that the way every pro-choicer feels? No. But they should be educated and make reasonable and informed decisions and not just parrot Planned Parenthood’s latest catch phrase. (Which incidentally, is to do away with the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” labels in favor of a complete disregard for common sense and an embrace of total emotionalism.)
http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-2007/viewpoint.html
Maybe I’m not reading the Gandy article carefully enough, Steph N, but it seems to me that she is admitting the importance of the question of personhood, and she’s concerned about the pro-life answer getting more traction. She says it’s not just a matter of semantics.
I thought a lot about Biden’s comments, partly because I think he actually is one of the smartest people in the room. He seemed to me to be making a distinction between different ways of holding a belief. There are some propositions he has an obligation as a Roman Catholic to assent to, and the teaching on when life begins is one of them. I may be mistaken about this, but it seems like he feels an obligation to bow to the Church on that particular issue, but he’s not taking it to be actionable in the same way that he would if he “really” believed it in his heart of hearts. If he’s really taking the belief seriously, in the way it is officially understood by the Church, then I don’t see how he can be pro-choice.
I would guess that there could be someone in your church who can’t really take the teaching about Hell and eternal damnation seriously, but who assents to it and is in a kind of state of limbo about it. This person may have serious enough doubts to not truly be a believer in it but may also have enough modesty and self doubt to defer to leaders of the church and others they respect. And it also seems to be Biblical, though this person wonders if that has to be taken literally. And so on.
Dr. Brinton,
Regarding the Gandy article, I actually agree with you. She is concerned that the pro-life side is gaining traction toward defining a fetus as a person. But to me, that is the problem. I always assumed that both sides desire to value human life and do “the right thing,” (assuming in this situation the right thing is to protect innocent human life.) This is what we all claim, after all. Pro-choicers do not favor murdering born infants, of course, because they want to protect innocent human life.
The debate has always come down to “when is a fetus a person,” and so I was shocked to know that there are people on the pro-choice side who very openly don’t care about when life begins. They care that they have legal access to abortion, as Ms. Gandy so eloquently indicated. Maybe I was misleading with my initial introduction to the article. My point is what you said, “…She is admitting the importance of the question of personhood, and she’s concerned about the pro-life answer getting more traction. She says it’s not just a matter of semantics.”
Forgive my redundancy, but when people are more concerned about their right to a procedure than they are about finding out whether said procedure kills innocent life (or not), I am shocked. Maybe I shouldn’t be.
This segues into Biden’s comments as such: (Please be patient with me and my lack of logic skills, I am a student of your daughter but a VERY slow learner, despite her excellent teaching skills!) Is it not illogical to have the following ideology?:
- A fetus is an innocent person at conception
- It is wrong to kill innocent persons
But it is a woman’s right to choose to kill her innocent human fetus
(Feel free to instruct me here, I am a willing learner on what is logical/valid and what is not.)
To me, Biden’s comments were much more than a nod to both his Church and the pro-choice side. It was a display of utter insanity, admitting to the personhood of a fetus (probably much to Ms. Gandy’s dismay!) while still coming off as a devout Catholic. It was the quintessential political move — the type most average Americans loathe. Having your cake and eating it too.
I agree that perhaps he only nominally agrees with the stance of his church. This is a common occurrence in faiths of all kinds — to contain people who adhere as mental assent only. That is between him and God. I am concerned about the political aspect of his statement and the absurdity of claiming that a fetus is a person at conception, BUT it’s a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate it or not.
Thanks for engaging with us! We are all learning a lot.
- Steph N.
Well, my impression is that Gandy does care about whether a fetus is at the time of abortion a person (“person” might not be the ideal word here, but by it I’m meaning the kind of being that has the relevant kind of moral standing), but that she is quite certain that a newly conceived fetus is not one. She may think that it’s absurd to think it is one, to the extent that she thinks it is hardly worth discussing — but that’s not the same thing as not caring whether it’s a person. If you eat hamburgers, it’s not because you don’t care whether a steer is a person. If you thought it were one (or if you simply agreed with those who claim it has moral standing), you’d feel guilty about eating hamburgers. Now I will tell you straight up that it’s hard for me to take the claim that a newly conceived fetus is a person (or a being with the moral status of a person) seriously. But it would be false to say that I don’t care whether it has that status. I do want to point out that there could be other reasons for its being wrong to kill a newly conceived fetus.
I agree with your logic. If a newly conceived fetus is a person, a woman can’t have the right to choose to abort it, with the possible exception of doing so to save her own life.
I wish the Vice President had addressed your concern rather than leaving hearers with the not unreasonable impression that you got. He owed us an explanation of how he can submit to his Church on a matter of belief without being committed to the logical consequences of that belief. Where are the Jesuits when you need them? They have all kinds of distinctions for such occasions.
I see your point about Ms. Gandy’s concern for the personhood (as you have defined it) of a fetus. I think that is a good distinction to make. I might be getting into “if my aunt had wheels would she be a tea cart?” type of reasoning here, but theoretically, how can she be so convinced that fetus isn’t a person? I am convinced a steer is not a person, but that is due to my worldview. Clearly, Hindus (to some degree) would disagree with me. Would it then be reasonable to assume that Ms. Gandy (and others who share her view) hold a sort of “faith” that the fetus isn’t a person? It has not been metaphysically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a fetus is not a person (that I am aware of). Pro-choice folks with this stance base their assumptions about personhood on their own worldview (which includes a faith or an absence of one, in my opinion.)
If your point about fetal personhood is true and those like Ms. Gandy sincerely consider it an exercise in folly to try and prove the fetus to be a person, or to even consider that possibility, how can they be so sure of their claim when after all, it is merely a faith stance?
And to make my line of reasoning even weirder, what about a time in history when some people did not consider blacks to be “persons” or “human?” The claim that a fetus isn’t a person (again based on your definition), really does seem to me to be an opinion more than a fact.
The pro-choice movement legislated their worldview through the US Constitution when they passed Roe v. Wade. And isn’t that the very thing the pro-choice side accuses the pro-life side of? Legislating morality, or legislating “faith” and “worldview?” I do believe the issue boils down to a difference in worldview since common sense and science (to a large degree but not conclusively, of course) show us that from the beginning, a human is a unique person. At the very least, when left alone and with no intervention, the fetus will become a human child. To say otherwise seems to be making a foreign claim.
It actually sounds a lot like someone trying to convince me that there isn’t a God, when I believe (like it’s a fact) that there is a God. That’s my worldview. It wouldn’t be a worthy discussion for me to engage in, unless I thought it could benefit the person discussing it with me. Perhaps that is how some pro-choice folks (like the ones you have described) feel about the moral standing of a newly conceived fetus?
I am glad the abolitionists pressed the matter of the human state of black people. I know it’s not a seamless analogy, but sometimes we might think we know all of the factors when we really don’t. Instead we rely on faith to fill in the gaps where hard facts and science won’t.
I don’t know what my point is, I’m just exploring.
I don’t think it’s an article of faith that the fetus isn’t a person immediately after conception, Stephanie. The fetus is, after all, at that stage a much simpler organism than a person in the familiar sense in which you, for example, are a person. It shouldn’t be regarded as a mere blob of organic material, I grant, since it has the potential of developing into something like you or me. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the pro-choice person to say that the burden of proof is on you if you claim that destroying a fetus at a very primitive stage is the moral equivalent of murdering you, and if you are arguing that this entity deserves the same protections as you or I do under the law and that this entity has rights that trump the rights of a woman over what goes on within her own body. The (early stage) fetus is not so conspicuously the same kind of being as a black person of your age is in comparison with you. The question at hand is not whether there is a God. Someone can believe that there is a God who makes moral demands of us without having the kind of belief you have about the fetus or about abortion.
The pro-choice argument about the law would be that the presumption is against restrictions on the freedom of the individual to make decisions about what goes on in her own body. The presumption in our system is that we are free to act unless a justification exists for limiting that freedom. So if there is serious disagreement about the justification for it, legal prohibitions should not be imposed. Therefore, a decision such as Roe vs. Wade does not impose the morality of some on others. If money you pay in taxes is used to pay for abortions, then you may have grounds to complain about a sense in which the morality of others is being imposed upon you, as I do when money I pay in taxes is used to pay for wars that I believe to be morally wrong.
In relation to cows, pigs and chickens, the burden of proof is not on you to prove that they don’t have a right not to be eaten. It is on those who claim it’s immoral for you to eat them and who might like to impose restrictions on what you can eat.
As always, you make wonderful points!
I am going to defer this conversation for a few weeks time. Stephanie will be doing an entire post dedicated to burden of proof as it relates to this issue. I look forward to discussing it with you then, if you are so inclined. (Which I hope you are!) I have very much appreciated conversing with you and am learning a lot. Thank you for your time here on our little blog.
I know Mrs. Lasater intends to address that question and that she has some interedting thoughts about it.
I respect what you guys are trying to do here and your commitment to civility and reasonable conversation. I’m interested in contributing and explaining the rationale of some arguments and opinions that you don’t agree with. But I’m not interested in changing anyone’s opinions on the substantive issues, partly because of uncertainty as to whether my opinions are correct, and partly because I don’t want the responsibility of that.
Perhaps this is obvious, but I should add that I am not claiming that ALL pro-choice advocates think this way. This is just one of many different arguments I have heard. I am trying to separate the arguments and deal with them individually…which can be problematic as there is much overlap.
I literally believe that a woman should be able to do anything she wants with her body. And she is fully responsible for facing the consequences of the actions she takes. If she decides to go shoot up someone’s property, there are many potential consequences to it.
Why can’t she sell her own body? It’s not hurting you or me. It’s the same as trying to tell her she can’t sell her dining room table. It’s not appropriate for us to be involved at all.
Dependency is slavery. Children are the property of their parents simply because they cannot survive without them. Government intervention is just a change of parents.
You are free to believe that children are the property of their parents and that the justification for government lies solely in the protection of property. Such opinions can be adhered to consistently. But they are rather queer opinions and have very strange implications. If my children are literally my property, I have the right to kill them or to sell them to my neighbor. I can leave them to other heirs as assets in my estate. I’m also confronted with the difficult question as to when or at what stage they cease to be my possessions. At what point and by what mechanism is the ownership of their bodies transferred from me to them? So this is a possible theory about certain kinds of relationships between human beings. But it’s one that almost nobody will find even remotely plausible, and so it can provide no traction in serious debate about whether abortion is immoral or should be illegal. I could advance a theory about ownership of all of us by aliens in terms of which all controversy about abortion could be resolved. But that would be pointless if nobody takes my theory seriously.
Theists can also advance an ownership theory that serve such a purpose and that’s actually plausible, which is that we all (and all of our bodies) are owned by God. I don’t accept that theory, either, but it’s not a ridiculous theory. You seem to have a larger theory about possession and property that does strike me as bordering on the ridiculous. See my response to your comments in one of the earlier blog items. You seem to regard “property” as a more fundamental concept than “person.” I don’t get it. Without persons there would be no such thing as property. It’s possible to cast the abortion debate in terms of ownership or property rights, but that seems to reduce it to the level of arguing over placement of a fence.
I think I’m being unclear… I don’t use protection of property as justification for government. I think that there is reasonable cause to form a voluntary social construct for the purpose of protecting property. For example, I may group together with my neighbors to form a neighborhood watch. We’re working cooperatively in a consensus to protect our property. Where I have conflict with this is when we push to form a social construct (government) that -forces- my neighbors to participate.
Most of the points you’re bringing up are legal issues within the context of a system where what you do is within the scope of my rights and responsibilities. My primary point is that it’s not. What you do with your children is not my right and not my responsibility. How you define ownership when it comes to children should be up to you and your children, not to me. (These are metaphoric you and me, since I’m your child).
I’m not really trying to cast the debate in terms of ownership or property rights. I’m trying to point out what I consider to be the bigger problem of which this is a symptom: that we feel other people are our responsibility.
Are other people never my responsibility? Look, we have a rather specific issue here, which is abortion. This is a controversial issue. Steph’s approach to it is to consider specific lines of argument that are given by supporters of the view she rejects. This is the normal kind of approach. But someone can approach it at a whole different level, for example by arguing that none of us actually exist or that right and wrong are illusions or mere social constructs. That kind of approach does nothing to advance the conversation. It’s as if the Defense Department contracts you to solve a logistics problem and you propose to resolve it by arguing that the material world actually doesn’t exist. Nobody (or hardly anybody) else involved in the abortion debate believes or will seriously entertain the claim that we have no responsibilities to other people or that we’re never responsible for other people. Same-same for the idea that our children are like our AV systems, things that we own and can dispose of as we like. If that’s true, abortion is not something we need to argue about.
If I’m asked why I’m “pro-choice”, I explain that it’s because I don’t support the underlying assumption of the pro-life position that people should be legally obligated be responsible for other people. When people ask me to explain it, I do.
I’m answering questions and you’re dismissing my position as frivolous.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be dismissing your position as frivolous. I think maybe you’re thinking more about limits on what government should do and making the point that it has no right (or authority or whatever we want to call it) to hold me responsible for my neighbor, while I’m thinking about right and wrong behavior. I’m thinking in terms of wrongness of harming anothrr person, and do I believe that if the fetus is has the moral status of a person, then abortion is a moral wrong. Whether it should be illegal is a different question.
When we’re talking about “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, I generally think the debate is about legislation. Like you said, this is probably where we are getting our wires crossed.
In a previous post, I said that I would most likely intervene (with violence if necessary) to protect another person. I feel a moral obligation to do so. But I don’t want to force this obligation on other people or have other people force their moral obligations on me (which is where the legislation issue comes into play). So, to answer your “are other people never my responsibility” question, I would say that your responsibilities are up to you. You’re in a far better position than I am to make that judgement.