Abortion – Listening to Both Sides
In a Gallup poll released last month, I learned that 47% of Americans consider themselves pro-life, 45% pro-choice. As William McGurn wrote in the Wall Street Journal (“Gallup’s Pro-Life America: When Will the Media Reflect America on Abortion?“) this week, “Our strong moral qualms about abortion have not gone away.”
However, most Americans still want abortion to remain legal.
In writing about women and spirituality I’ve not squared off with the important issue of abortion. I’m friends with women who are pro-choice and pro-life. As in the gun rights issue, it is the caricatures in media coverage that distort the women behind t
he platforms. I’ve noticed how easily both of us fail to understand the robust arguments for the other side.
For instance it’s neither accurate or fair to believe that all pro-choice advocates are pro-woman and anti-baby, nor is it accurate to assume all pro-life advocates are pro-baby and anti-woman. In this post I want to see what we can learn from each other without the mud-slinging.
Our recent book, Coffee Shop Conversations: Making the Most of Spiritual Small Talk, begins with the Rules of Loving Discourse. I’d like to practice these with you as we discuss abortion. Let’s see if we can get into the other side’s shoes, listen to valid arguments and concerns all the while discovering what we actually believe about life, womanhood, family, sex and death.
The Grey Area
It seems only fair to begin by admitting there are areas where the decision to terminate a fetus’ life is not black and white, where the mother and the baby’s life are in danger.
Our local paper syndicated Nicholas Kristof’s coverage in the New York Times of Sister Margaret McBride’s recent excommunication, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. The charge: McBride’s assent to the termination of an 11-week old fetus carried by a 27-year-old mother. This mother of four suffered from pulmonary hypertension that created a high enough probability that the strain of a continuing pregnancy would likely kill her and her baby. The balance of mother and child’s life hung suspended at this Catholic hospital, needing permission from someone like Sister Margaret. To refuse to act would have likely destroyed both mother and child.
The Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, ruled that “the mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s,” and excommunicated McBride. Read the full story at NPR.
Then What?
Often my pro-life friends are quick to assume that if abortion were made illegal, the world would be a better place.
But, consider for a moment what would follow. What laws would pro-life advocates want enforced? What specific policy would we implement against doctors who perform abortions when they are illegal? Would we charge them with first degree murder? What crime should a woman be charged with for seeking an abortion?
If women are victims of abortion, how can we penalize them? Doesn’t this assault a woman’s volition, her autonomy, her maturity? Should penalties for women be increased if they seek more than one abortion? For mothers who seek abortions, do we incarcerate them and remove them from their families to prevent further abortions? Do we penalize then with a fine? with community service?
Are we truly ready to call all women who seek abortions murderers? And what about the systems, the ethics committees, the counselors and family members, the boyfriends and husbands who play a part in these abortions? Should they also be charged with murder? If abortion becomes illegal do we call McBride an accomplice to a murder?
For more questions and a rigorous development of the “then what?” see Dan’s Hole in the Wall: Getting Political for a Moment“)
Listening to Pro-Choice
I recently came across a blog where Hugo Schwyzer, professor, Episcopal youth minister, husband and father explains that his experience of watching his second daughter born only confirmed him more resolutely into the pro-choice camp (read at “Pregnant Woman, Personhood and Some Paternal Reflections“).
Confused and interested I read on. He notices that once a woman becomes pregnant people’s perception of her value splits into two categories.
One, her value as a woman.
Two, her value as a life-giving agent to sustain, carry, feed, shelter this growing life inside. A perfect way to illustrate this duality is how commonly people feel free to touch a pregnant woman’s belly. I experienced this as well. People I knew only casually slid their hands all around my abdomen, without seeming to realize this was my skin, my nerves they touched. They weren’t really touching Finn, they were touching me.
Schwyzer notes that a growing life inside a woman, for all its excitement and beauty, does not trump a woman’s subject-hood. In other words, the life of the baby should not erase the woman’s life. He writes,
” To see my daughter born was one of the great experiences of my life. But I never lost sight of the reality that my wife was more than a vessel to carry this new and splendid creature. My wife’s rights didn’t diminish with conception and with each passing week of gestation. I knew a longed-for and desperately wanted new life grew inside of her, but the emphasis was always as much on “inside of her” as on the “new life.” And I assure you that my wonder at the miracle of life is matched, and even surpassed, by the wonder at what a woman’s body can do if that woman chooses to make it happen.”
In thinking about this I both agree and disagree. I agree that a woman’s personhood is intact, even while pregnant. However, I think Schwyzer has overblown the choice woman have.
You cannot be pregnant without becoming a vessel. The fact that a woman’s life (food, energy, etc) serves her fetus is not a choice. You cannot bear a child and also refuse to become a vessel. Pregnancy means our body will serve this child’s growing needs, you cannot be pregnant without performing this service. And, in my case, gain lots of extra weight, feel sore, require frequent bathroom visits and feel achy while you try to do normal activities. Pregnancy can feel like an invasion. To call this a choice is in my mind mistaken.
A better verb is not choosing, but entering or enduring or accepting. I would not call the pregnancy a choice as much as something that happens to women after sex… and there’s no way for a woman to exit the pregnancy without having something else happen to her, be it a miscarriage or an abortion.
As much as I dislike the picture of woman as passive, accepting pregnancy does not have the texture of other intentional decisions I’ve made in my life. Waiting and watching my body change wasn’t the same as choosing what major I wanted, who to marry, what flowers to plant, when or how to have sex.
Pregnancy feels more like something is happening to me, like a ride I stepped on, a plane I boarded. Pregnancy felt like something was being acted within me. And to accept this vessel-becoming experience, to become a tabernacle of new life involved my investment and daily sacrifice (read more about my pregnancy experience “New Body“).
Perhaps what Schwyzer means is that woman’s choice to accept pregnancy should not obliterate their personhood in the process. I agree, however, I found pregnancy could enhance the personal dignity of my womanhood.
Outlawing Pain
Schwyzer’s main point is that since pregnancy and delivery (whether vaginally or caesarean) hurts, forcing a woman to go through this painful (and he admits, worthy) process is horrific. He writes, “We [he and his wife] both shudder, more than ever now, at the thought of compelling a woman to go through this process against her will.“
He believes the woman must choose this pain and that the child must be wanted.
He writes about abortion doctor’s work as ministry. He talks about abortions as a time for doctors to trust that women know what is best for their own bodies and the lives of their children.
I read that and think, wait, I believe in women, too. And I trust women. Are some feminists hearing pro-lifers as people who do not trust women?
Challenge to Pro-Choice Advocates
Speaking as a woman who has endured labor without any pain medication I will agree with Schwyzer. Yes, it does hurt.
The litany of sacrifices on the part of the mother (birthing hurts, pregnancy is inconvenient, sleep-deprivation is unpleasant and disorienting and push-me-to-tears frustrating, the stitches after my second degree tear throb for days, the physical deprivation of no sex for weeks and weeks pushing me to wonder more than once, “Why, oh WHY didn’t God split up biological baby-care duties a bit more evenly? I mean he could at least have given men breasts so my poor ol’ body could heal with decent night’s rests instead of healing on 3 hours here and there snatched in between feedings?!!!”) is not to be minimized.
No way, Jose.
The fact that children are painful remains a point most pro-life advocates fail to really park on. The movie Juno, does a good job of showing part of the pain. I felt my insides quiver with participatory suffering when I watched Juno weep after she had given birth, her boyfriend crawling into bed next to her, his muddy running cleats on the hospital bed (an apt metaphor for the messiness of relationships, sex and children).
However, pro-choice advocates forget that as God created sex, one aspect (others being recreation and unity) is the potential for children. I don’t think you can divorce sex from children, not without damaging both parties.
Perhaps pro-choice advocates feel the intensity of the pain and the amount of time pregnancy requires warrants the state remaining mum on the subject and letting a woman choose.
I disagree.
The law enforces painful things everyday, like the draft for military service, a requirement that isn’t anything as natural as the sex-baby connection. The state enforces taxes (a painful process to say the least) for your entire life without an opt-out. I’m not saying having a baby is the same as being drafted or paying taxes, but it does serve to prove that the state frequently requires it’s citizens to undergo pain (and in the case of the draft, to face death) without asking permission.
Maybe we don’t like that the state has this power, we might even petition against it or think it unfair. But we certainly allow it this right, as our government.
So I don’t think the charge that pregnancy and birth (and child-rearing) is painful holds.
I have an inkling that woman would more easily undergo nine months of painful “invasion” of a fetus if pregnancy’s responsibilities ended there. It’s the life of a person for years and years after the birth that has our adrenalin pumping with fearful anticipation. Will I be able to handle a child?
When I compare the glorious portability and minimal responsibility of carrying Finn as a fetus compared with caring for him as a baby, the pregnancy part was a breeze.
During pregnancy I slept long and well. I easily coordinated elaborate outfits with accessories and make-up. I worked out or spend hours reading and writing without leaking milk. Then I had a baby.
It’s not merely the pregnancy that women must count as a cost, it’s the life after the birth.
I believe more women would refuse an abortion if they could serve nine months and be done with it. It’s not the pain of the nine months; it is the idea of a life to be responsible for, to be guilty about, to wonder as to the painful, happy, fruitful or fruitless future of your offspring.
Cleaning the Slate?
Perhaps the single most provocative offering of abortion is a promise that abortion can help you wipe the slate clean. This is an offer too tempting to refuse when you are faced with life as you know it ending (how will you raise a teenager in this world?) or facing the idea that through the “out” of adoption someone else will raise your teenager in this world (To better understand a woman’s feelings before terminating her pregnancy read an example at “Choosing Not to Keep the Baby” note the comments – most striking to me is how no friends rallied behind this young women to help her raise her unplanned child – this a problem I’ve heard of time and again with the friends I know who have walked into abortion clinics by themselves… it is at root a problem with all of us – How many of you have helped an unwed mother raise an unwanted child? – understanding how we all play a part in abortion deserves another post).
But back to the idea that pain should not be demanded out of women unless they choose it, I don’t see the precedent in any other area. Avoiding our own pain has never been an adequate reason to extinguish another life. As the Dread Pirate Roberts of The Princess Bride says, “Life is pain, your highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.”
We know the laws of nature require pain if we choose to disregard them. If we choose to run a race, we will face the pain of conditioning. If we choose to love we face the pain of vulnerability, rejection, fragility and death. If we choose to make love when we’re not ready in some (even small) capacity to become a vessel for a child, then we face the pain of dashed plans, the inconvenience and pain of either a baby or an abortion.
Abortion and Sin
Living east of Eden, sin is it’s own punishment.
So we must ask yourselves, is abortion sin? Let’s simply define sin as missing the mark or twisting the good.
If abortion is sin, I’m less concerned with making abortion illegal.
If abortion is missing the mark I believe the costs of a woman enduring an abortion provides a strong enough punishme
nt without heaping on a murder charge, silence out of shame and isolation to boot.
It seems most likely, from my limited experience with two pregnancies, that women know they are taking away life or a form of life when they terminate their pregnancies. I’m not saying they admit it, though some do (see Naomi Wolf’s “Our Bodies, Our Souls“)
My concern is that pro-choice advocates remain intent upon driving a wedge between procreation and sex. I don’t think this is appropriately human, nor that God created our bodies and souls to permanently cleave sex away from procreation.
Conundrum
It seems to me that the difference between terminating an eleven week old fetus and terminating a thirty week old fetus is significant and worth thinking about. I’ve heard pro-life advocates say there is no difference in value.
I do not intend to minimize the grief of losing a child at any age (read my own grief over the loss of our six week old fetus here). However, I have an intuitive sense after losing a six week old fetus and facing the possibility of losing a week old baby (read here) that you feel like you’re losing more with a week old baby.
Now here is where pro-choice advocates need to tread carefully. Does the intuition that a baby at one week is more v
aluable than a fetus at 6 weeks find valid justification? I mean do my intuitions match reality, do they find justification in Scripture, in natural law, in God’s law? Are there reasons to think of one as more valuable than another? Is if fair to fault a smaller, less developed form of human life as less valuable than a bigger, more developed form? Is it merely because a baby looks more like a baby as it gets older that I feel the loss greater?
Now, here’s the strange conundrum, the dependency of a one week old baby feels greater, more invasive, more sobering and commanding than the dependency of a five week old fetus. But we protect the life of a baby once it’s outside the womb, no matter how inconvenient, painful, difficult that life might be to mother, to father, to society.
Thoughts? Concerns? Ideas?
June 1st, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Jonalyn, thanks for a very thoughtful piece and for linking to two of my posts. You raise some questions I realize I need to answer sooner rather than later, and I’ll try and do that in a future post, linkin’ back to ya.
All the best,
H
June 1st, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Glad you’re tackling this. Some thoughts: (maybe not super relevant to what you wrote, but it’s what comes to my mind with this topic)
1. A few weeks ago I was in a group where a friend was sharing an experience of choosing to terminate a previous pregnancy at 20 weeks due to some serious congenital deformities that would have most likely led to death of the baby. I’ve always felt that were I in that situation I hope that I would choose to carry the baby to term and wait to see what God had in store… and yet, there was something that opened my heart to listen to this woman who so desperately loved that baby she had been waiting a long time for… who prayed and sought God’s will in this decision, and who still feels that this is what God led her to choose. Putting a very real face with very real tears on this issue really opened my eyes to its complexity. Who knows how I would react in that situation… knowing this woman and her heart, I definitely learned how to have more grace and understanding for women who find themselves in desperate situations in pregnancy. It helped me understand that the stereotype of a callous, selfish mom isn’t always the case. I think often moms choose abortion because they truly feel as though it’s the best decision for the child and their family.
2. I used to volunteer at a Christian crisis pregnancy center… the kind where you try to counsel them out of a decision to abort and into either keeping the baby or adoption. While I think it is an important service and ministry (free pregnancy and STD tests, parenting classes, referrals to health services, etc…), I was struck by how it was very easy to become an anti-abortion ministry rather than a pro-woman/life ministry. It bothers me that so little is done (like you mentioned) to help woman in raising an unplanned child. I think a lot of pro-life people consider it a success as long as the woman chooses to give birth, but what happens to them after that? Well, I know that in my hometown the infant mortality rate is the worst in the country and worse than many third-world countries…much of this due to poverty, drugs, and lack of knowledge of baby care. I’m sure a good number of the women my clinic counseled to keep their baby would be bringing their baby home to some really bad situations. If we worked to help come alongside women in situations of violence/poverty, etc… to help them out, I would think they would be much more likely to choose life because they wouldn’t be so fearful of the kind of life their baby will grow-up in.
Why isn’t the pro-life movement not more concerned about supporting moms once the babies are born? I had a ROUGH transition into motherhood… colicky babies, depression, sleeplessness, you name it. And I had a TON of family support. I always wonder about how those teenagers I counseled handled their new child… who supported them? Who helped them? Beyond giving them baby clothes, what are we really doing for them? I think that it’s here that the pro-life movement is failing and what gives us a bad rap. I don’t support the act of abortion, but I also really don’t support the idea that being pro-life is about being anti-abortion. We need to figure-out a way to really help support and sustain life to its fullest.
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Hugo – looking forward to your response. Thanks for the link and time!
Emily – helpful stories
1- this is a good way to humanize our idea of what the mother who terminates a pregnancy. The woman I know who’ve considered abortion and have chosen the end of their pregnancy were neither callous nor cold. Usually they were alone.
2- fantastic point, being pro-life is about more than being anti-abortion! I don’t think change will happen to create a culture of life unless we take the energy to know those women in our communities who are facing an unplanned pregnancy and walk with them through the time, no matter what they choose… I think they need to know our friendship remains even if they terminate their pregnancy!
I also think we must grow small to make a big change. If each of us want to actually help these mothers we cannot expect to affect hundreds. Just as your family taught you, we can only really help and be available for a handful.
I love that Paul calls the church family, the issue of mothers with unplanned pregnancies is a prime opportunity to be aunts, sisters, uncles, brothers. And this will take time.
As I write this a teenage woman is welcoming her unplanned child into the world. She is virtually alone except for her church, with whom she’s had rocky relationship. It is members of the body who, individually, have given her the courage to have this child.
I salute her courage.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 am
This issue, as complicated as it may be, emotionally and mentally, from a “on the ground” perspective, is actually very simple: “Thou shalt not kill.”
I’m not saying it’s easy to follow this command, of course, especially when faced with those terrible situations where both the mother and child will likely die if an abortion is not performed. It is very grave indeed to imagine telling a mother that God will not be pleased with her if she kills her unborn child to save her own life.
But somehow, I think she will know this, deep down, and is longing for someone to say: “Be brave, keep yourself from this sin, and trust God. Your life and the life of your child are in His hands now.”
Is what I’m saying so strange? The Lord told his disciples that whoever was not willing to give up lands, houses, family, and even his own life for the sake of following Him could not be His disciple. Should we then, as Christians, tell a mother that she can kill another person (whether the person is inside or outside her body is immaterial – I know it’s not romantic to say that, but it’s true) to preserve her own life? I don’t think we can, in good conscience.
This is kindly meant: it seems to me that your feet are facing in a dangerous direction here. Favoring the emotions and thoughts of man above the clear word of God never goes well. If God has decreed that both mother and child should die, it is terrible for our hearts – but should we then violate His law, and even nature itself, in order to preserve a life He plans to take? In order to avoid suffering? Is this what Christ would have done?
We are often guilty of believing that human pain and suffering are more terrible than sin, and that sin is excusable in order to eradicate pain. But the Bible warns most about the terrible power of sin, and the judgement that results from sin. Pain and hunger, persecution and sorrow, though dreadful, are never given as a reason to excuse sin, in the Bible, because God knows: sin leads to eternal death, which is far, far more terrible than natural death.
Be careful with this issue, that’s my advice. Your desire to see both sides is admirable, as we are called to be peacemakers. But it’s also full of the kind of heart-felt justifications that can sway your heart away from God. Taking a life into our own hands, and disposing of it as we see fit is murder, despite all the eloquent excuses that men can make for you.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
I currently am a full-time male volunteer in a “crisis pregnancy center” counseling the men that accompany the women. So many times the focus of being pro-life is lost…yes, a baby was saved, but was a soul?
The issue that you raised that is a life more valuable as a 1 week old or a 5 week old fetus is definitely a conundrum. I definitely know that if my wife were to lose a pregnancy, I would be heartbroken. However, if my 3 1/2 old son or 14 month old daughter were to die right now, I would be close to devastation. We can touch, feel, see, hear and smell a one week old. Usually, we can’t have any of those sensations with a 5 week old fetus. Generally, the only indication of the life inside is a blood or urine test. With this said, it is very easy to see why as humans we dismiss that both beings are equal, whether born or unborn.
However, because we are spiritual beings, its all the same to God. He sees us the same whether we are in the womb seconds after conception or if we are on our death bed: He loves us. He made us. He places us in earthly suits until the time that we live with him. Therefore, the conundrum is actually simple: All human life has the same value during any point in time. The choice is to accept this or not.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Hi Jonalyn, thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. A thought regarding illegality: You say abortion is a sin, and thus carries its own sufficient punishment in the form of guilt. But why wouldn’t we say the same about murder? The purpose of laws is not only to punish, but also to protect victims and deter wrongdoing. The obvious victims here are the fetuses–aren’t they entitled to the protection of the law?
Regarding pain and the law: an interesting parallel is the doctrine of “duress.” If I am forced to commit a crime on threat of bodily harm, I cannot be convicted of the crime (rather, the person threatening me can and should be convicted). The one exception: murder. No matter how heinous the threat–even if my own life is threatened–I am never justified to kill another person. The analogy to abortion is that while the pain of pregnancy may justify making life hell for your husband, it cannot justify taking a human life. This doctrine further refutes the idea that the law cannot require one to endure pain.
Regarding a 5-week old fetus vs. a 30-week old fetus: I agree that the former intuitively seems less human than the latter. As I understand it, the standard position of the church throughout the first millennium was that a fetus was not human at the point of conception, but became human at some ill-defined point prior to birth. Aquinas thought the fetus first acquired a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a human soul. I’m not sure how well that holds up (isn’t an adult dog smarter and more capable than a baby human?). But given the extremely close link between the soul and the brain, it seems reasonable to me to peg humanization at the point where the brain has all of its faculties.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Wow, thanks for tackling such a hard subject to talk about. Some of the problems I have that you didn’t address are abortions where the person has been raped. What are your thoughts on this? The other thing that really gets me riled up is partial birth abortion. I can not even believe that this is an option because the whole head hasn’t made it out or because they are still connected they can still “abort”. In my opinion that would be murder. It just makes me sad to think about the poor little baby who could have gone to a home but instead was killed.
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Jonalyn, kudos to you on taking on such a difficult topic. Here are my thoughts. I personally do not feel that abortion would be the right choice for me but although I try not to classify myself at all I generally say I am Pro-Choice because I strongly feel that no one should be allowed to chose what another woman has and hasn’t got the right to do with her own body. I think that trying to make this a legal issue is treading on rocky ground. I think that just as Emily said we need to focus more on what will become of that woman and child after birth occurs and see how it is we can help these women so that they have more choices. So that they dont feel alone and maybe just in that we’ll be a little bit closer to reducing the number of abortions. These women need to be treated more tenderly and not looked at as murderers because it is a huge gray area and the facts are not always as simple as whether the baby is wanted or not. I think that the issue of abortion needs to be faced the same way we all face sin in our daily lives, as a personal choice that we have to make. We all need to remember to love and not judge because I feel that only through the understanding eyes of love may we be able to see the other persons point of view and help counsel them towards a choice that may be better than just termination while still keeping in mind that again not every woman who faces the probability of abortion is entering through the doors of unwanted pregnancy. For some it is a choice of life or death, for others severe psychological damage. In the end it is not fair or right for us the decide what the future of these women will be, whether they will live or die or suffer for the rest of their lives. Rather than trying to keep to the basic black and white titles of Pro-life or Pro-choice I try to keep to one that I feel is more in line with the grayness if the issue. Not my body, not my choice. Now don’t think me a coward for this because I would and have voiced my opinion to other women in the past who are considering abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. I have told them that I feel there is a life inside of them no matter how early it may be in the pregnancy but I also tell them that this decision is one that they need to pray on because it isn’t my voice they need to listen to. But no matter what their decision is I will be there for them to help in any way that I can because whether I agree with their choice or not I still chose to be appropriately human and love them.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:01 am
Hi Jonalyn! I would just like to share one thought for right now. I used to think a human is a living soul immediately upon conception. Now, I can no longer conclude that. What changed my mind? Becoming pregnant with identical twins. I realize that at one point in my twin pregnancy, there was only one “life”. After some days (could have been just a couple or even weeks), this one life split into two. How could my Hannah and my Abigail each had a soul upon conception if they were not Hannah and Abigail but…??
This is an important aspect to consider, as so many believe (as I did) that when you kill a baby in utero, of even just one day old, you are killing a soul.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:23 am
OK so here is my take….
I head someone use the analogy once …
I don’t- not kill my husband because the law says its illegal. I Don’t kill him because I value him and his life. For me I would never even consider killing him as an option.
I see it so much more as a matter of the heart and the culture. Why would anyone even consider killing their baby? Babies and children should be valued and treasured at any stage of life. I think in out culture anything that causes you the least bit if discomfort is casually done away with, Look at all the drogs available for almost every possible ill, look at the divorce rate, the abortion rate…
I too volunteer at a pregnancy center- this one though is very mom focused although I agree that much more needs to be done to help moms in crisis before and after their baby. I also feel much more needs to be done to help people in general. Sometimes I get frustrated in so many people just “talking” about things like helping moms, and no one actually doing something…. I know the pregnancy center in our area has a HUGE need for volunteers all the time and I am sure it is the same in other areas. I think we as moms and as a culture need to speak out on the value of children and people of all ages and change the culture so that making abortion illegal isn’t an issue anymore, people just don’t consider it.
Side note. For those who say most women only have one abortion, and that it just a one time thing done at a crisis point, and carefully thought out etc…. I totally disagree. I have seen so many moms who have had multiple, multiple abortions. Most hastily done almost as a form of delayed birth control. The pregnanct center I volunteer at doesn’t have any of the “gorey” abortion movies and for a while that never interested me. One day at home a friend sent a link on youtube that I watched that had pictures of aborted babies. Yes the majority of abortions are done at an early stage when they baby is very tiny, but so so many are also done later.
My dad once said if we really truely thought about and realized what was being done at abortion clinics, we would understand more why people are driven to bomb them….
ok so this is kind of rambling…but just my thoughts….
June 5th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Hi Jonalyn,
I actually read Hugo’s post a while back but I wanted to respond to your post since you made reference to his. Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying, but I don’t think the stance he took had much to do with the fact that the pregnancy or birthing processes are painful (that is a related issue, of course), but rather to do with a woman’s autonomy over her own body. He made the case many pro-choicers do, which is that a woman should not be forced to use her body in a way contrary to her wishes (I don’t think it necessarily matters if pain is involved). I’m sorry, but I don’t think the comparisons you made to other government interventions in our lives hold up. The right of the government to institute a draft is hotly contested as it is, but even forced military service does not encroach on a person’s bodily autonomy in the same manner as forcing a person to endure an unwanted pregnancy. I can’t think of anything more intimate and personal than the process of carrying and giving birth to another human being. Taxes encroach on our financial freedom, but not our bodily freedom, which I think makes them a different issue altogether.
You posited that the fact child birth is painful is not a valid reason to prohibit government involvement in abortion decisions, but what if we came at this from the opposite side? If child birth was not a painful experience, would that in and of itself be a valid reason to allow government intervention? Or does the fact that the woman’s own body is involved have any bearing on the decision? In my opinion, the pain is merely a side-issue.
June 5th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Tiffany,
Thank you for voicing concern and please know that my pushing back on you (below) is also kindly meant.
Here is what is interesting to me, I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. But I do disagree with the tone in which you wrote it.
To call the issue of abortion simple is premature if you cannot spend time feeling the dilemma women feel. I am not sensing your willingness to sit in any of the pain a woman faces when she looks at the possibility that either she or she and her child will die (as in the McBride situation).
I’m concerned that your attitude toward this topic could very easily sound more anti-abortion than pro-life (of woman and child).
Secondly, in terms of the issues at hand, the Bible is not as crystal clear as you are making it sound on the issue of killing. Many times God actually commands murder (for instance Genesis 9:6). So the case for never killing isn’t a fool-proof principle. There are reasons to kill.
The example of Sister McBride is helpful only if you sit in the dilemma. To refuse to see it as a dilemma is, to my mind, willfully turning a blind eye to what is not simple.
Third – and this speaks to a question Esther raised. The idea that life begins at conception is not completely clear given the twinning reality. It is possible that either the single zygote has the soul of two, or that God inputs another soul to create the twins. Either way, as Esther pointed out, another life seems to begin after the moment of conception (after the 9th day). What do we do with this?
We can believe that one life began at conception, we can even decide we will fight to defend this life, but we cannot call this simple.
My challenge to you is to consider that other followers of Jesus believe that Scripture isn’t so clear or simple on this issue. They maybe aren’t as convinced that a baby at 3 months in the womb is as valuable as a baby outside the womb.
Please do not vilify them.
Thank you for encouraging us to walk with Jesus into the hard road of moral uprightness, but I don’t think we should dismiss our emotions in this process. I think God created us with emotions, intuitions, thoughts that he has redeemed and with which we can honor him.
To ignore our emotions runs the huge risk of spiritual abuse, discounting part of our humanity in order to fall in step with the “Christian” party line. We are, after all, made in his image and being made like him in this walk of redemption.
I don’t think most people who are pro-choice would agree with you that their stance is to dispose of life as they see fit. Consider it a way to love them to take more time to slip on their shoes.
And please know that I am also for a culture of life, as I believe you are, too. But you and I are both responsible to create a kind of culture that loves the child and the women who choose abortion. I do not believe it’s loving to simplify an issue that for them is not simple.
June 5th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Thanks , Jonalyn and others, for encouraging compassion and critical thinking on this tough issue! I’ve really appreciated this post and the comments. So often, this issue is not presented with this kind of kindness and honest searching out of the complexity of the issues.
What seems to be a topic to add into this conversation is the role of economics. Many, many women are not in the same position as choosing as other women because of racist and sexist structures that marginalize their ability to make a living for themselves. Or, for other reasons, they do not enjoy middle-class comforts that many other women take for granted. If your basic needs are not being met, it is much harder to be able to deal well with the stress of a pregnancy or adoption or giving birth. I believe that abortion is a complicated moral issue. I also know that abortions effect poor women and women of color at a much higher rate. Obviously, access to health care, birth control, stable homes, etc. is so different based on various life experiences. So, as we think about how to lower abortions, we are really thinking about a complicated matrix—who has access to stability in order to even make a good decision? What about women who don’t have any margin of error economically, who can’t afford their abortion, much less taking time off a physically grueling job if they are pregnant to carry the child to term? I believe there are ways to give pregnant women more choices, and I think that is going to go the route of thinking about how resources are shared and allocated. Which means the church has such an important role….
June 7th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is great. I am enjoying reading your blog. So much of this resonates with my views and I too, am a new mother and seminary grad. While I can’t fathom doing the work and the research that you do while being a full-time mom, I encourage you to keep it up because we need more women like you impacting the church. Thank you for your hard work. And welcome to motherhood– it is wonderful. PS: we went to junior high together… Jodi told me about your blog. Blessings!
June 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
A civil discussion of an important point is sadly rare. Thank you. I respect that you hold beliefs that inform your morals, ethics and ultimately choices. Faith adherents have a right to choices for their own bodies that are consistent with their integrity, it goes without saying.
A thought experiment:
If a woman who, as an athiest, has no supernatural metaphysics, were to look at the problem would, nonetheless make an ethics-based decision to abort a pregnancy.
What is the common interest, since that is where we get to presume to tell other people, coerce people into decisions against self-interest. Who gets to decide for her if welcoming a child into the world is wise, given the prevailing circumstances. Who will care for and raise the child if it is born? What will the pregnancy and childbirth do to the relationships that form the fabric of your life, be they romantic, personal, familial or economic?
The body is a marvelous machine. It works. It has an emergent capacity for self-awareness.
The evidence suggests that rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, (too)early marriage, youth poverty and divorce are reduced in places that have policies that: promote sexual awarenessprovide information and free anonymous access to contraception and emergency contraception and make available safe, insured abortion.
You cannot compel a citizen to give up a kidney for the greater good, yet you would sacrifice any consequence for any woman of her body being hijacked due to the vagaries of her reproductive biology. No, she has a right(for you USAians a Constitutional right) to pursue happiness for her, her spouse, her family, and the broader community.
Philosophically there is no common ground between someone who places the value of the conceptus ahead of all perils to the mother (negating her volition), and someone who believes that the mother’s life in situ has intrinsic value that is must be balanced by her (since her organs are being used) against the huge uncertainties and certain and anticipated (and unanticipated) costs of a pregnancy, a delivery and to the lives lived thereafter.
June 10th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Hi Jonalyn, I found this article through Hugo Schwzyer’s response to it (which I haven’t read yet). Thank you for writing a compassionate and open-minded blog post on the issue of abortion. It is an issue that I struggle to get my head around, and I think that many ‘pro-lifers’ and ‘pro-choicers’ have more values/beliefs in common than they realise.
Your article is the first that I’ve read that has given respect to both sides of the issue of abortion. Every other article I’ve read on abortion has been strongly biased, and has failed to acknowledge that the issue is complex.
I think I would put myself in the “pro-life” camp, but I also want women to have autonomy over their own bodies, and I understand that some women are faced with some very tough situations. I think that choice should ultimately be up to them – I don’t think that making abortion illegal is the way to go. I think the focus of “pro-life” people should be on encouraging life where possible (eg. by supporting pregnant women before and after birth).
The abortion issue is morally complex, sometimes women are left with very few other choices (unless they are given support!). My friend’s mother had an abortion a year ago. It was a painful and complicated choice for her, but she felt like she had no other choice because her partner left her, she was on welfare, and she had very bad arthritis (which prevented her from dressing herself at times, and from driving her car). Perhaps her only option other than abortion was adoption, but what a difficult choice to have to make. For many women, aborting is a painful choice, but adopting out their baby could be many times more painful (although at least they would know that their child was still alive and being raised in a good place).
June 10th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Jonalyn, I was particularly struck with your comment about have any of us helped raise one of these children. My sister got pregnant when she was 20 years old. She went and told her then boyfriend who immediately told her it was over unless she got an abortion. He did not want the responsibility and basically it was her problem now. She opted to be done with him and keep the baby, knowing this would be a hard road, but not to the extent. As you mentioned, pregnancy is the easy part. Now, my sister has a family who supports and and has rallied behind her. That does not mean it has been easy. I was there when little Adelaide was born, I have been watching her full time while my sister finishes school and works a part time job. Has this been easy, no. I have two children of my own and I tutor part time. It is not easy, but is her life worth it, yes! I can’t help but cry as think about what we would do without her. Addie also has 98% hearing loss. This presents its own challenges. In fact, today I have to go and meet with my sister and Addie’s speech therapist since she is with me most of the time. Starting next Wednesday there will be someone invading my time and living space for the sake of Addie. Is it worth it? Was her unplanned life worth keeping? I understand the other situations mentioned and how this topic has no simple solutions as it involves sinful people, but all I know and can say from my own experience Addie’s was worth keeping.
June 12th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Tracie,
On the question of pregnancy following a rape, let me suggest something.
First, this is not the question facing America today. The issue is should a woman be permitted to terminate a pregnancy whenever she wants.
Second, I believe that when a rape creates a new life in a woman one of the most understandably attractive ideas would be to terminate the pregnancy, along with any other memory of her violation.
I think of the way the doctors I talked with encouraged me to quickly get a D and C after my miscarriage. They talked as if the D and C would wipe the slate clean, help me avoid unnecessary contraction and just, in general, clean up the mess.
I would imagine that if our society required a woman to carry a child conceived out of a rape, we would be asking her to be reminded for the rest of her life of the rape she is deeply wanting to put behind her.
I believe most people who think a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in the case of rape also believe this is too much to ask out of a violated woman.
My thought is: Can a woman ever forget when a man rapes her? Isn’t the suggestion that you can put it all behind you a powerful, but deceptive idea?
Do we really think that any woman would ever really forget? I mean in a healthy sense, most psychologists will tell us that trauma is not something we should try to erase or put behind us without understanding what happened, without facing both the pain and the reality of it.
Several years ago after my D and C, I felt “cleaned out”, but simultaneously empty. I am convinced I leapt over something meaningful and discarded an important part of my womanhood.
I had allowed the remnants of our first child to be sucked out of me without allowing this life the dignity of putting me through the suffering of cramps and labor. I don’t think the D and C was a sin, but I do think I missed something. And this was after the fetus had died. The life was already gone.
A D and C seems like a normal, proper way to help a woman get over her miscarriage. And I will say it was very easy, and perhaps that’s the trouble.
It was too simple.
Now knowing what labor is like and how much my body can take, I think I would have made that decision differently. I would have allowed my body to pass the remains of this life naturally if possible. I would have made my tears during those labor pains part of my grief.
I believe that if a child were conceived in a woman’s body after a man violated her, an abortion is not a clear path for healing, though it might tempt her. It seems almost impossible to me that abortion could really help a woman cope with a rape and a subsequent pregnancy.
Terminating a pregnancy might even be a straight ticket to denial, heightened guilt, deeper disgust in herself and a hasty wish to put aside this horrific event, also known as stuffing.
I don’t believe termination of her fetus will give a woman healing.
So far, you will notice, I’ve approached this topic concerned about the woman’s emotional health.
Third, I think it’s rather unkind to snuff out the chance of living to a fetus because her father violated her mother. I feel it punishes the wrong person.
Finally, termination of pregnancy indicates a simple unwillingness for redemption. And I want God to be more involved with life and building life from a place of death than abortion would allow.
June 12th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Chris,
A very powerfully made point about the murder exception to the doctrine of duress. Thank you for bring this example up.
If a fetus is a person, she should be protected by the law, regardless of the pain in the body she causes anyone else.
I think most people who are pro-choice are not convinced that a fetus is a person, a human, a full-fledged body and soul.
Interesting historical perspective on Aquinas and the brain/soul connection.
I tend to think that humanization isn’t a degreed property. And waiting to peg humanization until the brain has all its properties could land you in the same camp as Peter Singer. How many properties are enough?
Our son, FInn, for example, certainly doesn’t have some brain connections yet, that our dogs do.
What properties would you find essential for humanization? What week would you mark?
I’d like to ask my readers, too. What do you make of this idea that once the brain has all its faculties the fetus cannot be terminated?
June 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Lizzy,
Thank you for chiming in!
Could you help me understand what situations you believe a woman would incur severe psychological damage for carrying a pregnancy to term?
I love the way you work to support women regardless of the decision they make!
June 12th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Robbie,
To follow-up on your comment (and by the way thank you for the steady work you do to love the men and women who need counsel, even when they disregard your words), I wanted to emphasize the point you’re making.
1- God loves a 5 week old fetus as much as he loves a newborn baby.
2- Since God’s love is the example for our life and our love, we ought to love as he loved (1 John 4:7-12).
3- Abortion makes it impossible to love a baby (perhaps some might dispute this?).
4- Therefore, abortion is not in keeping with God’s love.
What do you all think?
June 12th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Lorene,
Thank you for your work to support moms. With your busy life and kids at home… I admire your courage to DO something!
June 12th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Corinne,
Thank you for helping clarify what you sensed was Hugo’s main point.
I agree that the autonomy of the woman’s body seems to be the most important issue in the pro-choice perspective.
My suggestion of the draft was to illuminate the way the government is permitted to encroach on bodily freedom. Let me try to make the parallel more exact.
The government drafts men which involved them sacrificing time (sometimes for years), comfort (think of how far they must be from family and friends, usually in bunk houses, often in unpleasant climates), diet (think of the mess kits soldiers have to survive on), and puts them at risk of health, limbs and possibly life.
Pregnancy involves a woman sacrificing her time (up to 9 months just to carry the fetus, MUCH longer if she will keep it), comfort (morning sickness, cumbersome body, constipation, constricted stomach, bladder, etc), diet (you cannot eat or drink just whatever you want) and puts woman at risk of health (so many possible complications), organs (always possible that the pregnancy or delivery will injure a woman), and possibly life (woman still die in childbirth).
Of course the parallel is not perfect. I would agree with you that pregnancy is mightily intimate, more so than even service in the military.
However, my point was merely to show that the government is currently permitted to legislate over a person’s body or mind (taxes for instance). The difference between draft and pregnancy seems to be in location. The draft puts men at risk due to outer threats, pregnancy to inner ones.
However, given the way biological warfare works, I’m not sure even this distinction would hold.
I think one line from your post that concerns me, is how you’ve made the invasive and intimate experience of pregnancy a sort of paramount trump card. I hear you saying that since pregnancy happens inside a woman, with her organs, her skin, her body the government should not be involved.
It’s a powerful line because it sounds like we’re forcing something as public as government (with all its gavel banging, flag-flying, bomb dropping, coat and tie-wearing) onto a woman’s body (and a woman’s body conjures up images of privacy, sanctity, a tabernacle of both beauty and life, a private, modest, protected place).
But, here’s the rub (and interesting paradox) in my mind.
The most private and intimate of things, like sex, in God’s economy and creation, are actually very public.
A good government, to my mind, will always be concerned with private things. I want a government that is fighting to keep virtue available, accessible, attractive and vice difficult to obtain.
I want a government that values virtue.
Why, precisely, does the fact of the fetus’ growth happening in a woman’s body require the government to stay “out of the way”?
It cannot be because of the inconvenience, pain, problem of pregnancy alone because the government worms it’s way into the privacy of life in other places (like the draft). It tears children from their parents when suspecting abuse, it keeps husbands from sleeping with their wives if it suspects violence, it dips into our wages effectively saying it knows how best to spend our money if we make more than others.
Help me understand why the woman’s body off limits to legislation? If we let the government give people truth serum effectively invading their bodies for a good cause (like ascertaining the location of a bomb in order to save people’s lives), why wouldn’t we let the government require a woman to carry her baby (also invading her body) for a good cause (saving the life of the fetus)?
Surely, there should be laws against people doing some things to their own bodies, right? For instance, against drug abuse, against public nudity. These all violate the right you suggest is sacred: the right to do with my body as I see fit.
Finally, there is, of course, the possibility that the woman’s rights over her body end if she is harming another individual. Since the government currently prohibits a woman from harming her children (even when it means she has to listen to colicky cries at all hours of the night), it is at least possible that the government is permitted to require a woman to release her right over her body if the fetus within her is human as well.
This all means that I don’t think the woman’s body is quite as untouchable as we women are tempted to make it. And this is due to the way I see so much of woman’s private life become public.
When I carried my son and my belly began to expand I was amazed at how publicly a private at SHOWED.
And now that private act is a person, with blue eyes and brown hair who will grow up and do very public things.
You asked: Does the fact that the woman’s own body is involved have any bearing on the decision? In my opinion, the pain is merely a side-issue.
After having experienced pregnancy and birth I’m more convinced that the woman who carries her baby to term is virtuous BECAUSE it is difficult. The pain indicates something about these women.
And while I’m not certain about what the best legislation would be.. I do think a virtuous woman ought to be rewarded, thanked, valued and encouraged.
The painfulness of the experience seems to me to illuminate the sacrifice. I think the pain of the pregnancy and birth are PRECISELY why many Americans believe they cannot require a woman to keep a fetus if she does not want it.
If the process was painless, and just occurred in a woman’s body like any other occurrence (as painless and as convenient as a vacation or driving to watch the sunset) then I think the numbers in the pro-choice camp would shrink.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Hi Jonalyn,
Thanks for responding to my post. I guess one of the reasons we don’t see eye to eye on this issue is that we have fundamentally different views on the appropriate role of government in our lives. In your original post, you wrote that we accept the government’s authority to levy taxes and institute and draft, and so this necessarily requires us to accept its authority on the abortion issue. My personal belief, however (blame it on my over-idealistic view of democracy) is that government can only legitimately exercise authority given to it by the people governed. Thus, if the majority of the public allows that the government can institute a draft, but not outlaw abortion, the government does not have the right to outlaw abortion.
You wrote, “A good government, to my mind, will always be concerned with private things. I want a government that is fighting to keep virtue available, accessible, attractive and vice difficult to obtain.” Many conservative Christians agree with you on that point. The problem with that definition of good government, however, is that it assumes, or takes for granted, that the government’s definitions of “virtue” and “vice” will match the definition put forth by the Christian Church. Notwithstanding the fact that many Christians disagree on which actions are “virtuous” and which not so, what about those subscribing to other religious beliefs? Do they get to weigh in on what is “virtuous” as well? For example, what if our government decided to abide by the virtues of Buddhism rather than Christianity? Many Buddhists believe it is unethical to harm any living being, human or not. Does the government have the right to disallow the killing of animals, even for purposes of providing food, because it deems such killing a “vice”? It seems rather arbitrary to me to suggest that a good government is a “virtuous” one. What is virtuous? Who decides, if not the people as a whole?
I’m also rather confused about your contention that a woman misses out on something when she bypasses the pain of pregnancy – that the pain lends dignity to her as a woman. I don’t see how this is supported by Scripture. God plainly states that the pain a woman endures in childbirth is a consequence of the fall, not a good thing. I think in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any pain in childbirth. I don’t think we earn brownie points with God by enduring natural childbirth sans drugs. In other words, I don’t think the pain is in any way a gift from God that brings dignity to mothers.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
Corinne,
Some good ideas you’ve put forth. Thank you!
You are correct that we probably see government’s role differently. This is a helpful point to bring up in an abortion discussion!
Since we’re moving the discussion into an ethical questions let me share more clearly my concern.
I think all of us believe some laws are just and others not. Or do you think the law makes things just?
I believe the government does best when it functions to reward virtue and discourage vice. Deciding that is the question we’re debating I think. I believe we all have some sort of internal compass, call it conscience, intuition, natural law, whatever, that points us towards “the good.” This is the standard I think all religious founders tried to point their followers toward.
I think that if Buddha taught truth and it is damaging to our souls/our bodies to harm living things then we all should work to change the laws to fit this moral code. If not, then not.
Of course it’s never quite that simple in a pluralistic society where we don’t all agree on morality. However, the fact of disagreement doesn’t entail that truth on morality or spirituality or even morality concerning abortion does not exist.
For example, women are not valued as fully human in some tribal groups in Togo. However, don’t you and I believe women are equal to men and fully human? And if so, if we were to move to Togo, shouldn’t we try to enact change toward that end? no matter how difficult?
This is why, to my mind, moral reformers are heroes, not scallawags. We respect Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. because they changed the laws, bent their bodies against the prevailing “morality” of their day.
I don’t believe the population at large can decide what is moral because then morality would change with the times. I see morality as much more stable than that, something within us, something placed in us by God. Something we often silence or ignore, but that guides, if we listen to it, us all the same. I don’t believe the majority of a population can create morality.
Subject change
About the idea that women miss something when they bypass the pain in labor, let me clarify. I do NOT think a woman gets more brownie points if she has a baby without drugs. NO WAY! I believe all pregnancies are painful, even if you have a C-section or an epidural or whatever, for reasons like having your body stretched out, having to use the restroom more often, etc. I do believe, as a Jesus-follower, that God can redeem our pain (as Jesus’ pain on the cross was redeemed, though the pain was NOT GOOD), but this doesn’t mean the pain itself is good. I agree with you that the pain is a result of the Genesis 3 judgment and by no means a fully good gift from God. All God’s gifts are perfect (James 1:17) and I thought my labor pain was NOT perfect!
I’d be eager to know where my post suggests that a woman’s labor pain is a gift from God bringing dignity as I’d like to change my wording if it’s unclear. Can you help me out?
June 27th, 2010 at 10:11 am
After reading my post here, a good friend emailed me this response. As he’s a professor of philosophy and makes some helpful points, I asked him for permission to re-post here. My favorite point he made is that many of us have both pro-life and pro-choice leaning in our psyches.
Read and consider.
Hey,
Interesting take–I think the deliberative process, which you are encouraging (and which I would as well) is one that will only occur if Roe and Doe are reversed (the correct way of putting it–bills are repealed, whereas court decisions are reversed). That is just the political reality. Deliberation is out of our hands at present. It sits with the court. These issues of penalties have already been deliberated on. They are nothing new in that regard.
The same questions about penalties have been asked of the killing of infants. Just answer those questions, on a human rights level, and work back. Either basic human rights develop or they don’t.
The law tries to have it both ways, right now. Human rights develop before birth, but never reach objectivity–they are always subjective to one person. Human right not to be killed is objective at birth. Why? No one knows.
But, what counts as birth? See attached: Harvard by Tracy Leigh Dodds, p. 7-8: the court refused to acknowledge birth was occurring because of the mindset of the mother–she did not want the baby. Even the definition of birth is being challenged as subjective according to the mother, not objective.
The moral problem is, as I see it: We have a conflict with in our own psyches–we have both a pro-life and pro-choice strain. The pro-life strain is more logical and objective. The pro-choice strain is more subjective. Whenever I read these articles to my classes, I get pro-choice blowback, but not prolife blowback. Pro-choicers often don’t even understand their own arguments, on the street level. And, as Mary Ann Warren puts it, p. 20, infanticide is not murder, it’s rather more like the destruction of property. When I read this to pro-choicers and inform them that this is one of the most persuasive pro-choice arguments, they are shocked. But, it is completely logical. Warren accepts the logic. This reaction by my pro-choice students, I note to them, shows that they have a strong pro-life strain within them, one that they seem to be out of touch with.
You are right that many pro-lifers are out of touch with the political and criminal consequences.
The issue: Why is any human life valuable? The answer to that question reveals everything. And of course, we disagree about it.
The statutes that were on the books at the time of Roe reflected that deliberation you desire. Legislatures deliberated on the penalties and hashed all of these answers out. Not every state agreed with the other states.
The philosophical underpinnings of Roe/Doe is what is inconsistent with this tradition. Legislatures are not able to hash out penalties in a deliberative way now.
________________________________________
In reading up on the attachments he sent I found this one from Dodds particularly interesting:
“In cases defining a child’s life by the wishes of a parent, the door to disaster is opened by the espousal of a belief
that children exist only at the mercy of those more powerful. This danger is especially profound given the statistics
surrounding child abuse. n84 A framework that gives the impression that children farther along in development are
more worthy of rights and judicial protections puts those already in the greatest jeopardy in even more serious danger.
Infants and very young children are at the highest risk of being seriously abused and even killed by their parents and
caregivers, n85 suggesting a need to place heightened importance on the life and safety rights of children at earlier
stages of development, instead of delaying such rights until later in their lives.
Some might argue that abortion is fundamentally different from the abuse and neglect of born children, given the
special importance of women’s bodily autonomy. This argument has some merit, particularly in light of the Supreme
Court’s high level of respect for privacy in situations dealing with sexual freedom and procreation. n86 It is a similar
judicial tradition, however, that puts born children at grave risk; the Court often gives the same level of deference to
privacy in personal homes as it does to privacy in the body. n87 As most children are abused [*738] and neglected
within their own homes, n88 reason suggests that we should not be afraid to question areas into which courts have
traditionally been loath to go when children’s lives are at stake. “It’s my body!” and “It’s my house!” express the same
type of privacy sentiment, with the most vulnerable children victimized in both locations. Privacy is undoubtedly
important and should not be abandoned as a key American value. In the context of a child’s well-being, however, this
country is doing its children a disservice by making certain areas completely off limits to legislatures and courts. Born
children are at particular risk because they are within the privacy of the home just as unborn children are at special risk
because they are within the privacy of the woman’s body. n8″
June 27th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Kimberly,
I like your idea of giving women MORE choices.
Speaking to the issues of race and the politics of abortion, I recently came across this potent, heavy-handed comic originally published by Chuck Asay of the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph.
Imagine it: three panels. One panel shows a KKK rally, the second a Nazi rally and the third a pro-choice rally.
The commentary at the top: “Which of these kills more Blacks?”
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute more than 43 percent of all African American pregnancies end in abortion. Since 1973 that’s nearly 12 million.
Hispanics will soon catch up as terminating their pregnancies become more acceptable and simple as abortion clinics move into their communities.
June 27th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Sonia,
It was wonderful to read your comment. Between putting the string cheese in the fridge and letting the dogs in and out, between dusting the house and doing the laundry, nursing Finn and watching an episode of the office, the work gets done… but only in fits and starts. I feel you get that
I feel I’m putting in part-time work in so many areas that I’m accustomed to hitting with full-time attention. Even though I feel my comment response time is later than I’d like, I’m grateful to be writing at all.
I couldn’t keep this blog up in any capacity if it weren’t for my husband who shares with “on-duty” time with our baby. It’s been a journey for me learning to trust him implicitly with Finn… I’m still growing there.
Thank you for writing in and encouraging me to keep on trucking!
Glad Jodi reconnected us!
June 27th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Randomizer/Randy,
Grateful to have your comment here.
I agree that an atheist woman would still want to make an ethics-based decision. Thank you for pointing that out here. Sadly Christians are too quick to assume atheists have no moral code.
The thought-experiment you propose assumes that the ethical system of aforesaid woman would be based on self-interest. I’m going to ask you to justify that specific ethical system (call it what you like, but it sounds similar to Ann Rand’s Ethical Egoism) above any other.
I believe you can make a case for an atheist to follow the ethics recommended by Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics i.e. Virtue Ethics based on the following question, “What would a woman (or man) of virtue do in this situation?”
The questions you ask predetermine a certain response. I agree that IF the fetus is merely another part of a woman’s body then the government should not be dictating her choices.
However, isn’t that the question on the table? Who decides if the fetus is human PERSON? Your language belies your position to be that this fetus (or as you put it conceptus) has no personhood. But isn’t this precisely what is debated?
Perhaps it would be more fruitful to hear why you believe the fetus is not a person. I’d be very interested in your justification. Please feel free to speak as an atheist or agnostic or whatever position you currently believe.
According to responsible ethical choices, if the woman is operating according to virtue she would need to ask the question, “What would the virtuous, honorable woman do in regards to this conceptus?” and act accordingly.
She cannot answer this question adequately until and unless she wrestles with the ontological value and significance (or lack thereof) of what grows within her. It is impossible to care for a fetus properly if you don’t know it’s value.
If, the fetus is part of the woman’s body, end of story, then removing it is more like destruction of physical property and she is as faultless as if she were to destroy a baby mango tree on her home site.
I like what my friend above noted in this debate, that we all feel both pro-life and pro-choice feelings within us.
This, in and of itself, is very interesting to me.
I do not, by the way, mean to put the life of the fetus ahead of the life of the mother. I’m more interested in understanding both lives as significant. I disgust the language that would pit the two against the other. However, as the McBride case indicates, the two lives are sometimes at odds. I cannot ignore that in some cases.
But to assume that all abortions result from the mother’s life put in peril would be close-minded. Can we make an ethical decision based on the exception, the minority cases?
Many, many women endure an abortion for non-life-threatening reasons. I’m concerned these women are given valid choices to undergo the organ-requiring certainties and uncertainties, the inconveniences without being bullied or recommended to simply “sweep the fetus under the rug.”
Perhaps the fact that abortion is so easy is what concerns me.
p.s. You mention us USAians which makes me curious what country you hail from…?
June 27th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
The discussion continues in another vein at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog. Go here to read how he thinks I’m mistaken: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/06/08/dont-presume-the-designers-intent-from-the-design-a-long-post-on-abortion-sexual-ethics-and-contraception-in-response-to-jonalyn/
If you hop over and join the discussion please use your words to enlighten and build up those who might tempt you to use ad hominems or straw men. Do not stoop to insult them, rather be clear and intent on truth and kindness!
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Here is what I don’t understand. From other posts, specifically the ones about motherhood, it seems that you are not opposed to birth control or limiting family size. This is in opposition to your assertion that sex must always be connected to procreation, as you say in this post and as is mentioned in Schwyzer’s piece. Which is it?
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“If a couple ONLY had sex to have fun and unite but never to open themselves to the possibility of children, I’d be concerned something was wrong or lopsided.” From your comment on Schwyzer’s piece.
Yet you defend couples who choose to remain childless for the purpose of ministry?
December 23rd, 2010 at 7:23 am
Yes, this is confusing. Thank you for asking for clarity. My point was I would want to know their reasons IF, of course, I was close to them. This comment is also meant to refer to couples who have their entire lives together, not couples past child-bearing years.
As I’ve said to couples without children, I value their decision when it comes from a desire for health, for service, for undistracted devotion, for so many other good reasons, to work they feel God has placed upon them, etc. However, there are couples who will not open themselves to children for their own fear alone, or for the purpose of ease of divorce later, fear that their body will be ruined (women), or even disgust of little kids. Because of the prevalence of these examples I feel concerned when I hear a couple refusing to open themselves to children–this desire is so often lopsided. That’s where it’s important–in my life–to listen to the reasons.
December 23rd, 2010 at 7:15 am
I see your confusion. You are correct that I’m not opposed to birth control or limiting family size. In this post, I do not mean to oppose birth control, either. Rather, I’m wanting to admit that using birth control does, indeed, affect our experience of sex. If we intend to not create a child in making love, the quality of the sex is changes. I’m not saying the non-reproductive sex is bad or sinful or not God-honoring–not at all. But that the very act of sex for pleasure or unity alone is changed because our intentions are changed.
It is hard to admit, but I do think that when you take away one of the purposes of sex (children), our emotions, expectations, intentions, pleasure and even anticipation changes.
June 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Amelia,
I’m grateful for your kind words.. it isn’t easy to try to show both sides.
I agree that the options for many women feel narrow, that should concern us to widen them.
Thank you for humanizing this discussion with the story of your friend’s mother.
Let me ask you a hard question, do you think women who would rather abort than choose adoption are making the choice more for the benefit of themselves or their fetus, or both?
June 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Danielle,
Your story about Addie is so valuable.
I would say that your trust in God (and your sister’s trust in God?) has given you more personal serenity than most would be able to shore out of their own souls.
I would value hearing a story of a woman who had an abortion an also felt the same way, that her life was so much better because of the decision to terminate. I believe these stories exist, though I have yet to hear them personally. Any takers?
What do we do with these counter examples?
There is so much unknown when a fetus never grows up and their parents are able to enjoy life uninterrupted, un-blemished by the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy.
How can we measure these lives against each other?
Perhaps the reason the abortion debate is so completely ugly is that we skirt the core question: what is this fetus?
BTW, I admire your sister, you and your family.
June 27th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Jonalyn, My sister is not saved, But I am loving her and Addie and trying to show them Jesus!
June 29th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
if we as a church as really serious about the issue of abortion, or of unwanted babies in general then we’d take them in the way the did back in rome. start by taking in or caring for every unwanted baby that’s already been born and continue working up the abortion time scale- we probably have the technology to save every 7 month pregancy, to induce birth and sustain the baby. is that money/resources well spent when we’re not appropriately caring for every babies already born? i agree with your point that it would a lot smaller task to ask every mother who doesn’t want the baby afterwards to endure the pregancy with the knowledge that her baby will come into a world where he/she will cared for, wanted by someone (if not the mother in all cases) and loved. maybe the mother isn’t in a place to do that herself, but if she sees a hope- a real, good alternative- it is a lot less to ask to endure the remaining months of uncomfortableness and the painful birthing process than the 18 yrs that follow. hope in the kingdom to come and hope founded on seeing that kingdom in action will be more powerful than any law we can write against/punishing a particular action/sin
June 29th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Yes – a young evangelical I used to work with and I spoke at length about this. She had an open mind and a living example to help her get over this prevailing mythos of some sects. Religion has many aspects, canon, community, ethic, governance, politics, etc. None of it is the exclusive property of religion. So yes, I know that being good does not require having God.
Not exclusively self-interest (and for the record, I detest egoism in all it’s manifestations (be they secular selfish individualism or religious “group egoism”). I did mention the fabric of relationships. The introduction of an unplanned child could bring harm to many, not just the woman who must decide. Women often (typically?) are responsible for the physical, psychological and emotional care of others around them. The demands of raising a new child may deplete resources to the point where others suffer. However, one must, I believe accept the primacy of the woman’s interests from the time of conception to delivery. No other person can demand the use of another’s organs. This is too much to demand, though one may ask. By conception, the woman is asked to volunteer her organs and undertake a labour that is demanding and in not a few cases leads to morbidity or even mortality. One may ask such a thing, but one may not demand it.
The courts here in Canada have certainly decided that a fetus is not a legal person. But then again, courts have decided that corporations are legal persons, so mistakes may be made. In any case you asked about a “human” not a “legal” person. I think the question does not arise in the issue. Can any human person come to your home and demand to use your body for their own purposes? Can they tap into your bloodstream without your consent? Can they ply you with hormones and house themselves in your generative organs? Why then should a fetus-person not have to respect your right to reject a request for such accommodation. Even on pain of death, the need of a kidney does not create an absolute obligation on a potential donor. So one may argue that the personhood of the fetus is not determinative of the right of the woman to decide whether to accommodate it.
But even if it did, I do not accept the postion that a fetus is a person for a number of reasons. First is that the foetus has no independant physical existance. It is fully integrated into the body of its host. Second, the foetus nearer conception lacks the neurological circuitry to support human-like cognition. A born person with such low neurological function would not be maintained on life support. A foetus is, at best, a potential person. Many things need to happen before it becomes a person, capable of having its own life and interests in the world.
The ontological value and significance of a fetus is unknowable. One can hope that it would survive gestation and delivery; grow as a child; mature into an adult; and become a citizen of the world adding goodness to the world at every stage. One cannot know that this would actually happen.
Being asked to take a leap of faith and answer yes to the request for support from a potential person may be a good decision for some women at some points in their life. For others, the virtuous, honourable answer would be “not this time.” Most women who abort are already mothers and others go on to become mothers.
We really have to trust women in order to let go of the idea that restrictions need to be applied. We certainly can’t lock up our daughters, nor can we avoid the reality that some women will abort (legal or not).
July 7th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
an interesting article: “Learning from the Sin of Sodomy” on how pro-lifers need to stand for more than opposing abortion can be found at the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?ref=faithbased_initiatives
My favorite paragraphs come at the end:
“A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.
If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.”
July 12th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Randomizer,
This is turning into a great discussion. Thank you for posting again!
Some responses to your points:
1- I agree that no one should DEMAND a woman’s organs unless, of course, the purpose be worthy. For instance, don’t we demand that parent’s of a child (say 2 months old) give up their sleep (part of their body’s health) in order to care for their child? I see that we as a society are quick to demand people to give up parts of their lives (yes, even their body’s sacred territory) to protect others. Here’s an example: We expect a mother to give up energy and convenience whenever she goes shopping with a child in a car seat. We even have law DEMANDING that she lug that child (with or without carseat) out of the hot car and into the place she’s going shopping. This all taxes her body, her organs, her arms, her breath, stealing valuable energy from her body. WHY? because the child is considered a valuable member of society, a person.
My argument is that we would not have so much trouble demanding a woman sacrifice her organs, her time, her nutrients IF we squarely faced the ontology of the fetus.
BTW, I also abhor egoism.
2- Some human persons have the right to demand our time, our energy, our body working, sweating for them. I will grant that this is a difference in degree, but not in kind. A child taxes a woman’s body in growing within her (some could argue) more than a child taxes a mother’s body after birth. I, however, believe that is debatable. And we do have laws protecting children from parents who refuse to expend their body’s to love and care properly for them. We call it child abuse.
3- I have trouble treating a fetus as a complete stranger. Most women (and I realize I’m leaving out those pregnant as a result of rape–for my thoughts on this please see above comment dated June 12 at 8:57 pm) have invited the possibility of life into their bodies. Sex and procreation cannot be sliced entirely a part. So to continue your analogy, I would say there is a natural progression between inviting a man’s sperm into your body and conceiving a child. Surely, this makes the fetus somewhat invited, even if birth control is used. The only sure-safe method of birth control is celibacy.
4- I’d like to take each of your reasons for not accepting the fetus as a person
a. why doesn’t the existence of unique blood type and DNA count to you as some independent physical existence?
b. cognition as a test for personhood would knock out many people in a comatose state. Doesn’t this concern you as these people only need (as does the fetus) time and nutrients to stabilize and emerge as contributing, cognitive members of our society?
c. If “having life and interests” in the world is a tests for personhood, we ought to eliminate many whom state recognizes as legal persons who don’t have either.
My test for personhood is the human soul, the immaterial substance that directs the body (e.g. unifies the brain, Central Nervous System) and accounts for human properties such as volition.
What arguments have you found that discredit your belief in the human soul?
Do you belief that since a fetus cannot demonstrate her ability to, say, choose, she doesn’t have this ability?
What happens in your mind to distinguish between a 40 week fetus in the womb and a 40 week baby outside?
We can know the ontological status of things without knowing their future choices. For example, I value an acorn without knowing if it will grow into an oak. The potentials are interesting and significant, but they do not chance the ontology of the acorn, as belonging to the family of trees.
In the same way, while we cannot know if a fetus will grow up an become a productive member of society, we can still classify it/her/him as a human person. Why? because of physical reasons like its own DNA and because of philosphical reasons like Thomistic Dualism which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.
I agree that we should never ask someone to take a leap of faith. I do not agree with leaping into anything without evidence.
I don’t think a woman needs to know the entire future of her unborn child to make a decision to carry to term. We can’t know this of a newly born child either, yet we still require mothers to not terminate their born children’s life.
And even if women continue to seek abortions, the work of discovering if our decisions are good, true and beautiful is worthy of our time and resources.
As one wiser than I said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
I’m curious if you think the life of a newly born child is a human person . . . even if the state failed to recognize it as such?
July 13th, 2010 at 8:01 am
I’ll try to address some of your points briefly. Thank you for a considered response.
“Sex and procreation cannot be sliced entirely a part (sic).”
- procreation is a function of sex. It is not the only one. For many people (myself included given that I have had a vasectomy) sex and procreation are, quite literally sliced apart. The availability of effective birth control means that women can now have sex without risking pregnancy (the number one cause of death of all women throughout history, BTW). Society is adjusting, unevenly to this new reality. Sex and procreation can and are, increasingly, unlinked. This is a good thing since it allows people to enjoy the pro-social and frankly ejoyable aspects of sex while remaining in control of their fertility.
I have no interest in discrediting anyone’s beliefs in a human soul. However, you must admit that it is an extraordinary claim that such a phantasm exists and it falls to those who would make extraordinary claims to provide the extraordinary evidence that would justify belief in them. As for dualism, cognitive science has refuted dualism (vis a vis mind-body) noting that cognition is embodied and the mind cannot be meaningfully discussed as a mere artifact of the body. WRT soul-body dualism, an appeal to authority (Aquinas) is not evidence, nor does he provide any himself that can be sustained upon empirical examination.
Some of your other arguments:
Unique DNA — you miss my point — the key here is that the foetus (while unique genetically) is not “independent” physically from the mother.
Where we differ perhaps most is on the question of foetal ontology. To me a foetus is something distinct from a person. The distinctions shrink as it becomes less cellular and more embodied. This is recognized by restrictions in almost all jurisdictions on late-term abortions except in cases where the pregnancy will likely kill the woman bearing it.
Clearly a newborn is a person. But even at that point a woman may choose not to personally sustain it by, for instance, putting it up for adoption or, in some states, leaving it in the care of the state.
You ask for my distinctions between a 40 week foetus and a 40 week child. While they are many, the comparison is not generally relevant to the discussion of abortion since the vast majority are done in the first trimester and almost none in the third. The more realistic question is to distinguish between a 10 week foetus and a child. This is not difficult.
The more accessible safe medical abortion is, the earlier women have them done — most late-term abortions are the result of either emergent health issues but one cannot ignore that restrictions and barriers to access to reproductive medical care are the cause of many delays in obtaining abortion.
A woman’s choice to postpone motherhood until she can provide the context for the healthy development of herself and her children is surely a decision that is good, true and beautiful and I would add, courageous. The facts tell us that where safe abortion is readily available there is less human suffering and human development advances.
No one can tell a woman what is her good, her truth or her beauty. She must choose and it behooves us to support her choice, or at least stay out of her way.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Randomizer,
So much to talk about, I’m going to zero in on one point. The soul’s existence, that you find phantasmically unrealistic.
The argument for the soul might be considered foundational in making a point for the personhood of the fetus.
The arguments for the immaterial soul are much more developed than I alluded to. I did not intend my citation of Aquinas to substitute for an argument.
Why don’t we, for the sake of time and space, just focus on one of my favorite arguments and hash out the cogency here?
One reason i believe in the soul is the existence of beliefs with complex ideas. For instance, you have a belief about your parents, I do, too.
I believe my mother loves me.
If humans are a collection of material parts (I’m assuming this is your view, correct me if I’m wrong), then you must be able to locate all our human experience, including our complex beliefs, in some physical area.
Where is this belief located?
Would you give me an organ in the brain? If so, which one?
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
The lack of an organic correlate of cognition is an insufficient argument for the existance of a soul. I would refer to the same phenomena in terms of a mind. The mind (or as you prefer to call it, soul) may not be capable of localization in a particular organ, but neither is is separate from the body.
Emergent work in Cognitive Science and Philosophy around the concept of embodiment argue that all aspects of cognition, including your belief in your mother’s love are situated in and constrained by our bodies. These aspects include the perceptual system, the intuitions that underlie the ability to move, activities and interactions with our environment and the native understanding of the world that is built into the body and the brain.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
If this approach is correct, there is little basis to suggest that a zygote or first trimester foetus has the necessary correlates of a mind/soul that would be recognizably comparable to that of a born human.
You can think of a mind as an emergent property of a complex dynamic system (a human being) in much the same way that a snowflake is an emergent property of a weather system.
But to return to your point, referring to such a property as a “soul” is, in my view attaching unnecessary supernatural bells and whistles to a phenomenon that is quite natural.
I think the operative logical fallacy in your position is the appeal to consequences of a belief. You believe that people are granted an immortal soul at conception. This belief is foundational and the consequence of this belief is that there is no significant ontological difference between a foetus and a born human and abortion is equivalent to killing a born human. Correct me if I am wrong.
I do not share this belief regarding the soul and consequently do not accept the logic of the arguments that follow.
We likely will continue to respectfully differ.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Hi Randomizer,
I’ve been following the discussion on this post for a bit now and decided to jump in since you and Jonalyn have moved into an area I have a lot of interest in (I teach a Philosophy of Mind course at a Canadian university).
It may be helpful to point out that just as you weren’t satisfied with (what you you took to be) Jonalyn’s appeal to Thomas Aquinas, most philosophers are going to be unsatisfied with your appeal to cognitive science. It is, in principle, impossible for the cognitive sciences to ‘prove’ that there is no mind/soul. The very most they can do is point to a correlation between the mind and body. This is something that is almost universally accepted among philosophers of mind (with Paul & Patricia Churchland being notable exceptions – those dang Canadians!). For example, in his book on the philosophy of mind John Heil (who is not a dualist of any sort) notes that “questions that arise in the philosophy of mind are rarely susceptible to straightforward empirical answers… Science provides a loose framework for representing empirical findings, but no strictly scientific principles tell us what we are to make of this evidence” (Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction, page 16).
Because the findings of cognitive science are compatible with either a Cartesian or Thomistic dualism they pose no problem for those that hold those views. (This truth is particularly ignored by popular magazines and news writers.) So if we’re to believe that there is no mind/soul and that the body is ontologically one thing, then it would need to be on philosophical grounds.
Another interesting thing that came to mind in reading your most recent post is that most philosophers actually consider emergentism to be a type of dualism. Because the mind/soul emerges from the body it must be distinct from it (that which emerges from some thing cannot be identical to that thing). In philosophical communities emergentism isn’t looked at in much better light than standard dualism because it requires one to accept the belief in something non-physical.
Jonalyn regularly refers to that non-physical part of the human as a ‘soul’ which for many people does have religious connotations, but it need not. (Plato, for example, obviously wasn’t a Christian but talks a lot about the soul.) I think you could easily take any instance in which she uses ‘soul’ and just replace it with ‘mind’. After doing so the charge of “attaching unnecessary supernatural bells and whistles” goes away pretty quickly. The use of ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ typically demonstrates where one focuses the philosophical discussion. Descartes focuses on the cognitive aspects of the non-physical part of the human and thus regularly uses ‘mind’. Aquinas, however, starts with and focuses on the integrated whole between the body and the non-physical part of us and so uses ‘soul’. Even for him it’s not the same thing that many Christians today use to talk about “that thing that gets saved from Hell.”
Finally (this got much longer than intended!), I’m fairly certain that Jonalyn commits no logical fallacy. Her method of reasoning seems to be as follows:
1) If humans have souls from conception, then the fetus is ontologically equivalent to “born humans”.
2) If the fetus is ontologically equivalent to born humans, then abortion is equivalent to killing a born human.
3) Therefore, if humans have souls from conception, then abortion is equivalent to killing a born human (and thus morally wrong).
There is no logical fallacy there at all, it’s just a standard hypothetical syllogism. Jonalyn, of course, needs to give us reasons for accepting the antecedent of the first premise (i.e., humans do not have souls from conception) – something she does do. You, however, deny the antecedent of the first premise. What’s funny is that if based upon that denial you conclude that abortion is not equivalent to killing a born human then you would be the one committing a logical fallacy (a series of denying the antecedent). But, if you start with the denial of the consequent of the third premise then you could validly deny the antecedent of the first. (One man’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens.
) The debate then would need to come down to which we have more reasons to accept: a) humans have souls from conception or b) abortion is not equivalent to killing a born human.
Best,
Paul
July 1st, 2011 at 6:00 am
Thanks for the thought-provoking challenge. In my world, philosophy of mind is part of the interdisciplinary domain referred to as cognitive science though you are correct that the field can entertain dualists and their philosophical opponents. You raise a number of points and I will try to address them cogently but will divide my response into two posts.
First, the question of emergence versus embodiment is interesting. If I propose that sand dunes are an emergent property of sand under the influence of physical forces including gravity and wind, does that imply that sand and dune can be separated? If not then how does the concept of emergence imply dualism in this context. Is the use of the idea of emergence in this context dirrerent than how the word is operationalized in formal discussions of POM? In any case, I do not personally subscribe to mind/body dualism.
July 1st, 2011 at 7:01 am
Secondly, you are correct that formally jocelyne’s logic is sound and that challenging only the first antecedant does not result in a logically sound and complete counter-argument.
I do not accept the proposition that yaweh breathes an essence into each of us at our unicellular origin. I find the claim both unlikely and untestable. However, refuting this proposition alone is not sufficient.
I support a woman’s right to choose for two reasons. First and foremost is the value I, amongst others, ascribe to bodily autonomy. Admittedly, there are limits where individuals interact. My freedom of movement does not allow me to punch you.
Secondly, I do not accept that a foetus is equivalent to a born human with a claim to personhood. I do not deny that it has human DNA, but so too do my fingernails. It lacks many of the attributes we associate with personhood and yet some would claim that it can assert claims that trump the bodily autonomy of the woman in whom it resides.
As stated upthread, no person may claim by right such an extreme and perilous endeavor as a foetus would claim of a woman from conception to delivery.
Jonalyn (apologies for earlier mis-spelling) asserts that the pre-nascent guest was invited and therefore may demand hospitality up to and including efforts risking death. I disagree.
My argument is:
1. If a woman is a person with bodily autonomy, then she cannot be forced to give birth.
2. If a foetus is not a person it cannot make claims limiting a person’s autonomy.
3. A foetus is not a person.
4. If there are circumstances in which the bringing a conception to fruition would cause more harm than good, a decision to abort may increase the net good.
5. Finally, a woman who has conceived has the greatest stake in all outcomes of the decision and is therefore best placed to make this and her decision should be respected.
Procedurally, the rest is a matter of how to implement the decision and back alley medicine serves no good.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Paul,
Appreciate your showing the limits of cognitive science in deciding which philosophy to choose in terms of mind/body connection.
I think, for clarity, that you mean to write the antecedent of the first premise would be “humans do have souls from conception)? Randomizer denies that humans have souls from conception.
Does this sound accurate?
Appreciate your final clarification of the debate Paul.
Randomizer, would appreciate any feedback.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Ah, yes you are right. The parenthetical in the second sentence underneath the numbered propositions should read “(i.e., humans do have souls from conception).”
Sorry about that and thanks for the clarification!
(And for what it’s worth, I apparently have a habit of inadvertently adding an unwanted ‘not’ every once in awhile. I did that in the first line of the first paper I wrote in graduate school and then again in my doctoral general exams. I’m very thankful my professors were as charitable as you.)
July 2nd, 2011 at 10:16 am
I question, ultimately whether Jonalyn and I can usefully debate further given that our epistemilogical commitments are irreconcilable.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Hello Randomizer,
I have to agree with you that we will probably not shift our positions here, our epistemological basics are very different.
I will probably continue to believe a foetus very substance holds more uniqueness and potential than, say a human fingernail. Would you be willing to list the attributes a foetus lacks that you find central to personhood? I think that will be helpful to myself and other readers.
I also find the burden of death that we heap upon women with unwanted pregnancies an unlikely salve to their predicament. It seems backward to treat pregnancy as more of a societal ill than the death a termination induces. Though I’m very cognizant of the toll of those nine months and the years afterward (I still have not slept for more than 5 hours at a time for over a year with my 16 month old).
I do believe that your fourth point above is so difficult to ascertain as we cannot know the future. Betting on probability where human will and determination supernaturally topsy-turn the future is something I cannot easily forget. It feels arrogant to super-impose our projections of an intolerable life upon a woman who may turn her life and that of her child to brighter places.
I remain grateful for your response and your willingness to let others read, critic, question and engage with you.
Your ideas are welcome here,
Jonalyn
July 25th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Jonalyn,
I notice a key point in this discussion is when a fetus becomes a person that we should therefore treat as such.
Pro-choicers argue for one reason or another that fetuses are not really people.
This argument has been used before.
What about black slaves? In the past it has been permissible to horrifically mistreat and even kill them because they weren’t “really people”.
Racism never was the issue but a tool. It gave people an excuse to treat their slaves as they saw fit.
The labels are different but the thinking behind them is same. Dehumanizing fetuses gives women the “right” to dispose of fetuses as they see fit.
When life begins is irrelevant. We are all God’s children, no matter what stage of development.
For this reason alone abortion is murder.
As Christians we should have no question whether abortion is wrong if we have accepted that God is love.
July 25th, 2011 at 7:12 am
Erin,
While I agree with you that all abortion destroys humans made in God’s image (regardless of age the fetus is still human), I’m not certain I know how to back up the belief that we are all God’s children. What Biblical text are you relying upon to make this case?
All ears,
Jonalyn