The Abortion Question

There are three things that can go wrong with an argument: 1, your terms can be ambiguous, 2, you can have false premises, 3, you can have faulty logic connecting your premises to your conclusion. If none of these things go wrong you have to admit the argument is valid. Let’s apply this to the abortion question.

The moral premise: it is wrong to intentionally end the life of an innocent person.

Factual premise: an embryo is an innocent person and abortion intentionally ends their life.

Conclusion: because abortion intentionally ends the life of an innocent person it is morally wrong.

Most would agree with the moral premise. The factual premise is the contested issue. When does one become a person? Before Roe every textbook agreed that life began at conception (every textbook within the last few hundred years—that is every text book written since we have gained knowledge of the working of conception). Now things are convoluted.

But if life begins not at conception, when does it begin? At birth? Why? Because one moves (so to speak) from one room (the womb) to another (the world)? Because one is able to breathe on their own? Why breathing, isn’t that arbitrary? Why not feed oneself? Because one is fully developed? A child’s sexual system does not fully develop for at least ten years and their bone structure is not finalized for ten more—would anyone argue it is less wrong to kill an eight year old than a thirty year old because the later is fully developed? Any and every argument used to defend abortion can also be used to defend infanticide.

Many say: how can an embryo have value, it is so small? So value is relative to size? Is an elephant more valuable than a man or another galaxy than Africa?

Think of it like this: either abortion is the killing of a innocent human life or it isn’t. Either we know it is or it isn’t. If we kill an innocent person and we know we do so it is the highest degree of murder. If we kill and we don’t know for sure that it is a person it is reckless (think of a man driving down the road. It is foggy, but there is something in the road that looks like the outline of a man. It may be a man or it may be a man’s coat, if he runs over the object and it is in fact a man and he kills this man he has committed reckless homicide). If it isn’t a life and we don’t know it is like running over the object and finding out that the object was in fact only a man’s cloak (which is certainly irresponsible, or rather, criminal negligence). If it is not life and we know it is not a life then abortion is not wrong and we should leave women alone.

But no one claims to know this! No one claims that we can prove it is not a human life! In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court admitted that we do not know when human life begins, therefore it is unconstitutional to limit abortion (which goes against hundreds of years of English and American common law precedence). In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (which is the guiding case for abortion) Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that every American has the right to define for themselves the meaning of life and the government can in no way hinder that pursuit.

But the fact is we do not allow people to redefine their morality in any area of life except for sex. Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe and Scalia’s in Casey, when compared to the respective majority opinions in both cases, demonstrate clearly that according to our jurisprudence the government may regulate abortion. Legal scholars who are proponents of abortion rights admit that Roe is the most ‘unconstitutional’ – for lack of a better term – ruling by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court violated well established principles, of comity, federalism, and the separation of powers. In Roe the Court violated principles of federalism and separation of powers, but also flipped the very notion of a fundamental right on its head. A fundamental right is a right that has been practiced without interruption since the inception of our nation (like being able to travel freely between states). If government tries to regulate a fundamental right it is unconstitutional. The Court found a fundamental right for abortion, even though every state had banned it since the inception of our union.

Still, even though the government can (at least in reference to American jurisprudence) regulate abortion, should it? In the very least the government should protect the weak and the innocent from the strong and guilty. Who is weaker and more innocent than the unborn? Who is guiltier than those who kill them?

Still, as opponents of abortion, shouldn’t we approach the problem from outside the legal system? If we didn’t live in a democracy, I would argue yes. But we do and we may elect our officials and the legal system is the most direct way to approach this problem. Consider it this way: if one lived in Germany in 1942 wouldn’t one’s foremost moral duty be to try to end the Holocaust? If one could do so immediately and politically would that not be preferable to trying to get to the root cause (replacement theology and anti-capitalism)?

And besides, trying to go after root causes assumes that law does not affect opinion. It may be that the most direct way to change opinion is to change the law. Furthermore, what are the root causes? Poverty and lack of education come to mind. But that is because we live post Dewey and Marx where man is viewed as a tabla rasa (blank slate) that is written upon by his education and environment. Education and material wealth are the solution to everything (from terrorism to STD’s).

I think the root problem is different. From time immemorial sex was viewed as transcendent because in it life is created. The 20th is the first century where man has successfully separated sex from reproduction (allowing sex without babies and babies without sex). This is not all bad and I can’t say that I understand it all, nonetheless I think there are some unforeseen (maybe even indiscernible) consequences of separating the two in such an unnatural manner. Because at its base what more is abortion than sex without babies? Do economics play a role? Yes, but only because we see children in economic terms and our happiness connected with our economic standing. Does education play a role? Of course. Education can decrease abortion. But at its root seems to be this notion of disconnecting sex and reproduction. Taking sex from a quasi-mystical experience where life may come and degrading it to the release of hormones and chemicals that makes one happy (indeed we even call masturbation sex with one self—but that is the anti-sex for it pushes one into oneself rather than pulls oneself out into another).

But isn’t the role of the church to transform the mind and not limit a man’s actions? Indeed, but who said anything about the church. I have been speaking of the government; I have been speaking of the duty of a just man, not a Christian. One can make plenty of arguments against abortion without reference to Christianity (for example: the feminist argument, worldwide 8 out of every ten children aborted is female; the multi-cultural argument, non-white races are aborted at a much higher rate than whites; the utilitarian argument, justice is increasing pleasure for the greatest number. Abortion deprives the aborted of all pleasure as well as the women who abort them for most women regret having abortions; the Aristotelian argument, observation shows us that no other species aborts its young, therefore abortion is unnatural and unjust; the Platonic argument, the best men (philosophers) across time have all condemned abortion; the argument from tradition/the democracy of the dead, our ancestors had good reason prevent abortion we should not be so quick to override them; Kant, one could not wish this act to be a universal norm; Marx, those aborted are disproportionately poor; Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus (in particular the former) believe that we should not interfere with the life force in such a way; and Muslims believe that Allah forbids it).

Not only do most in most times disagree with abortion, but even most today (save our self-appointed elite in the media, universities, and entertainment industries). What should we do? Oppose abortion. Will that do any good? I don’t know. God only asks for our obedience (here an obedience to the simple notion of justice), God leaves for Himself the responsibility of results.