HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar 21, 2004 Let’s take a little trip inside the mind of an abortion supporter. In this effort, I mean only to do my best to ‘get inside the head’ of what I consider a typical person whom is relatively liberal with respect to abortion by simply doing what I can to find arguments in favor of abortion, starting from first principles, and taking them to their logical conclusions. And in we go… Well that was a long lecture, I think my legs are asleep. Now, what I was I thinking about earlier. Oh yes, abortion. There has been a lot of ‘discussion’ on that topic lately, maybe I’d better really give some thought to a rational defense of abortion so that I can win the next argument I find myself in. Since everyone agrees that murder of innocent human beings should not be sanctioned by the government, then any abortion that is sanctioned must, by definition, be aimed at removing something that is not alive. So, the government has said that whatever is inside a pregnant woman prior to the end of the 1st trimester is not a human being. However, there was that stipulation that abortions can be carried out even after that point, with various restrictions. On that point, it appears that the government has said that whatever is inside a pregnant woman during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters is somewhere between ‘not alive’ and ‘alive’ and can, therefore, be sacrificed on a sliding scale based on severity of threat to the mother and gestational age of the collection of cells in the womb. After all, I think everyone would agree that a 1-second old infant should never be sacrificed for the sake of his or her mother’s health. But certainly a mere collection of cells has no standing relative to a full-fledged human being. I must admit that this is somewhat confusing. After all, an organization of matter is either alive or not, right? Sure, there are those who would argue that a virus is alive and others who would argue that it’s not …but when it comes to higher forms of life its up or down, heads or tails, etc. So, where should we draw the line from an objective, natural, and scientific point of view? Some have used the beating of the heart. Sounds good, but this is obviously not sufficient since a heart transplant patient (who for some period of time has no heart at all) is still considered a human being throughout the operation. Others have claimed that the litmus test should be neural activity. That’s perhaps a bit closer to correct given the situation of brain-dead individuals. After all, we do claim the right in extreme cases of a persistent vegetative state to pull the plug. However, no one ever refers to that conglomeration of matter as ‘not a person’…but rather as ‘without the potential for any sort of life worth living.’ Well, that’s an interesting one. ‘Without the potential for any sort of life worth living.’ There’s a good candidate for justifying an abortion. The only problem with that one is that virtually all abortions are carried out for very different reasons than this particular one. And, if abortion were restricted to those cases we would abort mostly ‘potentially poor’ masses of pregnant cells…sounds a bit to much like eugenics…and that’s no good. Oh well. Next up…a woman’s right to control her own body. That’s good…after all; the Roe decision established that a woman’s right to an abortion is covered under the 14th Amendment. Ok, good. So a woman’s Due Process rights give her the right to an abortion without governmental interference. Humm…the problem there is that one could argue that, if an embryo or fetus were ‘alive,’ then this would certainly not work. Again, no one is arguing that a 1-second old can be killed in the privacy of one’s own home or a doctor’s office. Oh, plus a woman’s 14th Amendment rights do not always hold up against the so-called (ugh!) rights of the undelivered mass of cells at all times, such as after the first 3 months of pregnancy. I guess that’s not nearly as solid as I had hoped. So…I’m apparently back to the original problem of when to define ‘life’ as starting. Let’s try it from a new angle. I can’t use the heartbeat, I can’t use brain activity…how about the issue of viability? By that I mean the mass of cells can be aborted up to the point at which it would be viable outside the womb. Humm, there might be a problem here. What do I mean by ‘viability.’ If a pregnant mass of cells were removed at various time points during a pregnancy and left on the table for a few hours … almost certainly only those VERY near the end would survive. But one might also say that ‘viability’ should include all care we have to give. After all, this only seems fair given that we expend amazing energy and money to save premature, and even full-term but sick, infants all the time. All right then, let’s say ‘viability’ means ‘survival with all available medical intervention.’ That puts ‘viability’ at around 22-23 weeks gestation or so. But wait…there seems to be a problem here…we will have to keep redefining the all- important term of ‘viability’ every day or so as medical techniques and technology advance and we are able to keep premature infants alive further and further back in a pregnancy. Well, that doesn’t sound like a universal definition or solution. One of my favorite arguments has always been the ‘Undead Corpses’ analogy. Let’s see…how did it go? Oh yes: If we treat unborn masses of cells as ‘potential humans,’ then we could also treat postnatal humans as ‘potential corpses.’ That would allow/require us to treat fellow human beings as if they are dead. We could then take all their money and bury them six feet underground. Now how did I hear someone once try to refute that one? It may have gone something like: First off, we treat our dead better than we treat many of our unborn. We give proper care and burial to our dead…while we suck our unborn out of a mother’s womb with a vacuum. Second, and most importantly, our side believes that every organization of matter from zygote (fertilized egg) up to an adult is a human being… not a ‘potential one’ so the whole analogy is off base. Wow, I most really have been listening intently. Anyway, I have to admit that although I would like to stand by the ‘Undead Corpses’ analogy…it just rings hollow. How can anyone seriously liken living humans to the dead as they do the unborn to the born? Oh well, I guess I’ll just give up this draining session of intellectual back flips and contortions and become a pro-lifer. …And we’re back. I hope that I have made my point, and not missed any big ones. This debate has raged for so long that I fear people have forgotten what we’re fighting for. Let us not forget that every day too many of the most innocent among us are deprived of a fair chance at life. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Email Thomas Carroll: carroll@student.uchc.edu Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
