Further debate on abortion

On June 9^th, 2009, I posted on these pages a three-part article in which I recounted a Debate or, perhaps more accurately, an Exchange of Views on abortion. These exchanges were with S.L. Bradish, a woman who has ideas and opinions far more fixed and certain than my own. Following the formal statements, the Rules allowed a limited number of questions to be posed to the other writer. To complete the story, then, I have posed a few of the representative questions and answers.

At the outset, I acknowledge that I am unable to articulate general statements that categorize actions as always correct or always immoral. The reason is that I can and must consider possible exceptions to the rules. As the final question was posed to me, the issue was one of moral certainty and judgment. As I grow older, I find that most important issues are not readily “black or white”; more often they are shades of gray.

The first question posed by Ms Bradish:

Bearing in mind that mankind has always had a “sub society” that it could prey upon, whether that group consisted of a different religion, race, or deformity, can you not understand that the new victim is named “fetus” to enable the dehumanizing process and allow the new victim to be killed with societal impunity?

My response:

When you pose the issue in those terms and with that terminology, you compel an affirmative answer. There is no question or uncertainty in my mind that a “fetus” is entitles to rights including that of life. There are inescapable sub-issues I cannot answer other than with my personal beliefs.

Aborting or the voluntary termination of a pregnancy is, as nearly everyone will acknowledge, is an extremely complex matter. Much depends on the concept of “personhood”. Most people have different opinions on when that “person” comes into being.

I consider the evolution from unfertilized ovum to the first splitting of a single cell creating blastomeres to zygote to fetus to baby to be an unbroken continuum. An excellent explanation of the opinions of science and faith are discussed at http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when5.htm.

As the development proceeds, the degree of moral choice decreases.

Finally, in the event of a conflict between the pregnant woman and the interests of the potential person, after examining the stage of the potential person’s development, I would give the decision making to the former. Certainly I would resolve any question as to the health of the mother in her favor.

Since the issue of the start of personhood is grounded on one’s religion and culture and not on scientific verities, we each have an absolute right to our viewpoints.

I would expect that we are in general agreement with regard to the issue of a terminated pregnancy being related to the issue of the start of “personhood”. We differ on when that might occur in a pregnancy, but I think that is reasonable and appropriate. It is also a start to mutual understanding.

.
The issue of the creation of personhood has been discussed and disputed for thousands of years. As new knowledge comes along, the timing shifts. The issue has been under discussion and has perplexed the legal, ethical and moral communities for millennia; it seems irrational to blame any President of the United States or any contemporaneous political group for creating the issue.

So, assuming you see the need to eliminate abortions, in toto, are you able to articulate in specific terms the laws that you would have enacted, taking into account Constitutional rights that are applicable?

What is your suggestion, your solution? What would you have done:

A draconian measure that protects everything down to the fertilized single cell to blastomeres to a zygote?

A criminalization of birth control and the bringing of criminal charges against the pregnant woman and any health care professional who participates to any extent in the abortion process?

Laws that would decriminalize all anti-abortion protests outside of clinics?

SL asks if, in my opinion, there are actions that are always wrong and should be prohibited in any “decent society”. At first, I quickly assumed that, of course, some things were so morally repugnant that any society that did not condemn them could not be considered “decent”. But then, I noticed that the last sentence contains non-absolute definitions: “morally”, “decent”; these words are established by a society, by a religious faith, by a personal or group set of codes. In short, they are not necessarily universal and not always applicable.

Since the topic here is “abortion”, I will limit the answer to SL’s question to the intentional killing of a human being, usually defined in penal statutes as constituting “murder”. But all killing of a human being (and that last term is also dependent on personal value systems) is certainly not forbidden by our laws. For example, there are killings that are considered “justifiable”; the killing of a person in defense of oneself or another is considered neither criminal nor morally repugnant. The killing of someone to protect property may give one pause and, by Florida law, one may kill a person who had threatened the life or properties of another but was in the process of running away and no longer constituted an imminent threat. I find the last example to be wrong, but the legislature felt otherwise.

Even the killing of a sentient person is not universally condemned. There have been societies in which the valiant losers in a battle or war are eaten in order that their virtues are absorbed into the victor. Do I consider that practice or the intentionally allowing the ill and aged to die repugnant? Of course. But that is because of my personal beliefs and I do not assume that all mankind must adhere to my values and beliefs.

Now as to abortion, the issue is whether the killing of the product of conception, in all stages and under all circumstances is morally evil and not to be allowed in any society. Nevada statutes make a distinction between a human being, the killing of whom may be murder, and a fetus prior to the 24^th week of pregnancy. Other statutes refer to a “quick” unborn entity. There is little consistency or uniformity.

The bottom line to all of this, in my opinion, is that the issue of abortion is judged according to one’s personal religious or secular value system. As I have already stated I consider the evolution from unfertilized ovum to the first splitting of a single cell creating blastomeres to zygote to fetus to baby to be an unbroken continuum. As the development proceeds, the degree of moral choice decreases. Those opposed to all abortions often point to the “late term” abortion as a common example of the evil nature of all procedures; those who have a less rigid point of view suggest that there is a significant difference of the termination of a pregnancy in the ninth month and the termination a few hours following conception by the “morning after” pill. I am of the latter belief.

I honor and respect those with different viewpoints and beliefs, but I ask that those people at least attempt to understand that others may be good and moral and decent and have different views.

[ Report Post ]

Tags: abortion views, late-term abortion, universal morality