All available topics: |
Abortion In America Last edited October, 2003, Last reviewed September 2007 It
is doubtful there is an issue in America more divisive or with more fervent,
emotional support on either side as abortion.
In one sense, perhaps it is admirable that human life is treasured enough
by our citizens as to fuel this sort of ruckus.
In another sense, though, it is tragic and dangerous for our future that
blind emotion can so overwhelm the light of reason in the minds of so many of
our citizens. Especially to the point that some place more value on the unborn
than on the living among us. Abortion is an issue that must be divorced from
passions and viewed in a logical manner. It
is a problem at the nexus of science and philosophy, where there is no room for
unthinking, reactionary inanity. There
is widespread agreement in America that the arbitrary murder of a fellow human
being is wrong on many levels. One
suspects that only a small number of people intent on killing abortion doctors
would disagree. Therefore, the moral and legal status of abortion hinges on the
definition of "human". We
agree that murder of a human is wrong, so at what point are we human? The
definition of a thing must include all of its parts and features.
Leave something out of the description and you have changed the
definition. A four-legged table has a top and four legs. Leave one leg out of
the description, and you no longer have a four-legged table. To completely
define a human, we could be here a very long time. We can describe humans in
terms of DNA, in terms of behavior, in terms of physical appearance, in terms of
history, and a thousand other ways. However, the most fundamental basis for
being human is obvious: our brain. No
other creature in the set of mammals has a brain that functions to the
"higher-order" degree of humans. There are lots of other necessary
ingredients in the human definition, to be sure, but none so important as our
brain. Leave the higher-order brain functions out of the definition of
"human" and you have something else altogether. It
is generally not considered morally or legally wrong to swat a fly dead in its
tracks. Working up the food chain, it is not considered "murder" to
catch a fish to eat. Even choosing to end the life of your pet cat or dog is
generally acceptable in our society, so long as it is done with a minimum of
pain for the animal. Arbitrarily taking the life of another human being, on the
other hand, is clearly wrong to most of us. Since humans have this higher-order brain
function, we possess the freewill to make use of this function, and we use this
handy little combination to make our own choices in our own lives. This is the basis
of "the pursuit of happiness". The ability to make and to act on
choices that ignore instinct, ignore pain, and ignore reflex is a human trait.
The ability to make a goal far in the future and to work toward that goal with a
disregard for present obstacles such as hunger, or fear, or self-doubt is a
human trait. To use logic and reason to overcome and to persevere is a human
trait. To even choose our own demise in the name of an idea or principle is a
uniquely human trait. In a moral sense, our human existence necessitates that we
be able to make our own individual choices for our own lives. In this sense, it is
wrong to arbitrarily take the life of another human-- that is their choice to
make, not yours. In relation to the nature of being human, it it is immoral to
arbitrarily (divorced from such things as self-defense, accidents, etc.) take
another human life. So? Well, in
relation to the abortion issue, the definition of "human" is critical. Some
of the most vocal and emotional critics of abortion would have us believe that
human life begins at the moment of conception. That is, that a few cells which
have the potential to eventually grow into an adult human are, in fact, already
a human being. Of course, by that kind of logic, one supposes that every 12 year
old boy locked in his room with a Playboy and every 13 year old girl having her
first menstrual cycle should be charged with attempted murder. In truth, a
cluster of cells in the womb of a potential mother does not come close to
meeting the definition of a human. Religious beliefs aside, it cannot be
logically argued that these microscopic cells that may or may not divide, grow
and develop into an infant human are already human. A four-legged table must
have four legs. These cells are simply part of the woman in which they are
hosted. And, if they are hosted in a laboratory dish, the people who contracted
with the lab own them and they are guided by the decisions made by those individuals. To
arbitrarily kill a newborn child would be wrong in the eyes of probably every
American. The boy or girl is a human being with the capacity—not yet fully
developed—for higher order thought and the ability to learn and to make
choices. "Capacity" is a
key word. A group of cells in a woman's womb does not have the capacity for
higher order thought. A newborn infant does. It will take years of development,
but the capacity is there in a healthy newborn because the entire human brain is
there. The brainstem, the midbrain, the forebrain are all available for
deployment by the individual. In a
newborn the essential bit of humanness is ready for work. In a group of cells
that essential bit has not yet even begun. In fact, the first inkling of a brain
stem does not start until the seventh week of human gestation. This is where the
real crux of the issue becomes apparent. Somewhere along the way between
conception and a newborn son or daughter, the subject in question became a
human. At what point do those cells divide and grow enough to be considered a
human being and to be afforded all the natural rights that America confers on
its citizens? Once
framed this way by philosophy, it becomes a question for science.
The brainstem, responsible for reflexive behavior, starts at seven weeks
of gestation and finishes development at around seven months of gestation.
It responds to external stimulus at around thirty-six to thirty-eight
weeks. The midbrain, first forming in the period between six weeks and 17 weeks,
is not complete until after birth. It is responsible for fetal eye movement
around the thirty-eighth week. Rudimentary cognition, or sentience, is said by
some to begin at around the third trimester and by others after birth. Is there
general agreement among scientists as to when fetal brain development is strong
enough to have the capacity for higher-order thought? There is not. With all the
emotional outbursts around the abortion issue, very little mainstream science
has been devoted to determining exactly when sentience or the capacity for
higher order though truly begins. Yet, we do know it is not at conception and
therefore we do know that abortion cannot be equated with murder at that stage
of development. There are many reasons to abort.
Some may even be ill-informed, or based on faulty reasoning, bad choices
in life, or even bad intent. Having an abortion is an emotional decision for
anyone. Even when we understand that we are only "killing" a clump of
cells, on an emotional level it reaches deep within our psyche. Nonetheless, if
a potential mother knows she cannot provide properly for a child, or that her
health is at risk, or that the cells will develop abnormally, or that she cannot
bear to raise a child born of a rape, or a thousand other reasons that matter
only to her, she has the right to terminate the development of those cells. They
are literally a part of her body. Even on an arbitrary basis, that potential
mother has the right to end the fetal development until such time as the fetus
develops the capacity for higher-order thought and becomes, therefore, a human
being. After that point, termination for reasons that are not arbitrary, such as
the health of the mother, are still morally correct if emotionally wrenching.
What is moral should also be legal. What
is consistent with the American principles contained in our founding documents
should be legal in our modern society. When
does an arbitrary abortion become morally wrong, and at what point should it be
illegal? Our current scientific
understanding of brain development is not yet complete enough to make the call.
Surely the first two trimesters are understood enough so that abortion should be
allowed without question. At some point after that the question becomes more
difficult for arbitrary termination, though not for termination based on things
such as the life of the potential mother or the health of the fetus.
If the potential mother is in danger or if the fetus is clearly
brain-dead, for example, then abortion may well be the best and the moral
choice. It would appear, however,
that our current legal position on the matter, arrived at largely by a mish-mash
of court cases, is not the final answer. Unfortunately, the legal status of
abortion is not codified in certainty through a constitutional amendment, but
through a tenuous series of legal opinions open for interpretation and debate
each passing year. Elections, politicians and judges are assessed by their
affect on the issue. Violence against parents who would abort and clinics who
would perform the work make America look like a petty third-world state. We need
this issue resolved, but we are probably one or two generations away from the
tipping point. Once
emotion is divorced from this issue and philosophic and scientific reasoning is
applied, abortion becomes a more manageable topic. With that reasoning complete,
the final solution becomes political in nature. In America we choose to support
the natural rights of man and give all individual human beings the freedom to
make their own choices. An American woman is a part of that set of human beings
and should, therefore, be allowed to make her own choices for her own body. If
her series of choices leads to conception, it should be her decision to allow
the completion of that fetal development or not. Until such time as that fetus
develops into what we can logically term a complete human being, she should be
free to make her choices. Even after the point of a fetus becoming
"human" there are reasons to allow the termination of the unborn. The
abortion issue is heavy with the basic American principles we hold dear. It is
important that we frame the debate in this way if we are to avoid irrational or
mystical "pro-lifers" from ripping a hole in the fabric of our
society. *** Copyright 2003, rationalamerican.com *** To cite this article: Painter, John. Abortion In America. (October 2003). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from <http://rationalamerican.com/thorns> |
|
© Copyright 2003-2007 rationalamerican.com. All rights reserved. |
|