CT blog: Obama's Abortion Straightjacket
Steve Waldman of CT blog raised a crucial point yesterday that demands Christian citizens' attention: What will be our course of action with regard to abortion legislation if and when Obama is elected? It will be no time for breathing a sigh of relief that election season is over. On the contrary, we will have a moral mandate to fight more fiercely, wisely, and creatively than ever before for the right of unborn children to life. We cannot and will not sit on our hands and watch a Democratically-controlled White House and Congress, in partnership with a left-leaning Supreme Court, strip away all our efforts up to this point. We must, as One Church, raise a cry for those who cannot cry out for themselves.
It is difficult to sustain a mission over the long-term, particularly when it has seemed as if there is no victory in sight. But we cannot allow the culture of death to reign, if we are to save our nation from utter ruin. We cannot buy the lie that economics will fix the moral corruption of those who choose to murder their babies. The most recent study by the Guttmacher Institute reveals that 93% of abortions are sought for "social reasons", i.e. "the child is unwanted or inconvenient". Yes, those are direct quotes. Only 1% of abortions occur in situations involving rape or incest, and 6% due to anticipated health problems with the mother or child. Yet we keep abortion legal in all cases, regardless of reason. Tell me, is this characteristic of a civilized, just society?
Nor can we buy the lie that legislating morality is unacceptable, for to do so would mean the complete undermining of all government. If murder is illegal, all murder must be illegal (do not be so naive as to equate murder with capital punishment or 'just war'. go learn the definition of murder). 'Personhood' according to psychological definitions is an inadequate criteria for establishing who does and does not have rights under the Constitution. It is too subjective, and it fails to protect (a) newborns, (b) the mentally handicapped, and (c) the elderly. These are among "the least of these" whom Jesus commanded us to protect and care for. The criteria must be objective, and the only objective criteria is a biological one: all organisms which are biologically human (possessing a full set of human chromosomes) and living, period. This includes fertilized, implanted eggs.
For those of you who are not aware of this, the 'personhood'—i.e. subjective—criteria is the one currently accepted by the Law of this nation, and it is the hinge on which the abortion issue turns. This is unspeakably perilous and must be changed—NOW. Get yourself a copy of John Feinberg's Ethics for a Brave New World, or another reputable, orthodox Christian ethicist's work, and educate yourself on the basic matters of ethics. It may make the difference between life and the deaths of millions of innocent children.And here is the rest of it.
It is difficult to sustain a mission over the long-term, particularly when it has seemed as if there is no victory in sight. But we cannot allow the culture of death to reign, if we are to save our nation from utter ruin. We cannot buy the lie that economics will fix the moral corruption of those who choose to murder their babies. The most recent study by the Guttmacher Institute reveals that 93% of abortions are sought for "social reasons", i.e. "the child is unwanted or inconvenient". Yes, those are direct quotes. Only 1% of abortions occur in situations involving rape or incest, and 6% due to anticipated health problems with the mother or child. Yet we keep abortion legal in all cases, regardless of reason. Tell me, is this characteristic of a civilized, just society?
Nor can we buy the lie that legislating morality is unacceptable, for to do so would mean the complete undermining of all government. If murder is illegal, all murder must be illegal (do not be so naive as to equate murder with capital punishment or 'just war'. go learn the definition of murder). 'Personhood' according to psychological definitions is an inadequate criteria for establishing who does and does not have rights under the Constitution. It is too subjective, and it fails to protect (a) newborns, (b) the mentally handicapped, and (c) the elderly. These are among "the least of these" whom Jesus commanded us to protect and care for. The criteria must be objective, and the only objective criteria is a biological one: all organisms which are biologically human (possessing a full set of human chromosomes) and living, period. This includes fertilized, implanted eggs.
For those of you who are not aware of this, the 'personhood'—i.e. subjective—criteria is the one currently accepted by the Law of this nation, and it is the hinge on which the abortion issue turns. This is unspeakably perilous and must be changed—NOW. Get yourself a copy of John Feinberg's Ethics for a Brave New World, or another reputable, orthodox Christian ethicist's work, and educate yourself on the basic matters of ethics. It may make the difference between life and the deaths of millions of innocent children.And here is the rest of it.
Just a couple of questions that I have for you, Matt; I'll bring them out one at a time for discussion control. First, in that Guttmacher Institute poll, are those the only three categories given? The percentages add up to 100%, so it seems to be the case. However, then wouldn't any economic problems fall into the "Unwanted/Social Reason" category, for lack of anything better?
ReplyDeleteYes, financial situation and a number of other factors fall under the latter category. Those statistics were measured, and multiple motives were cited for women's decisions to kill the child:
ReplyDelete75% - concern for other individuals (primarily boyfriend or husband)
75% - "could not afford a child"
75% - interference with work, school, or ability to care for other dependents
50% - marital problems or desire not to be a single parent
Other interesting figures are that 60% of abortions were had by white women, and two-thirds of women getting abortions had never been married.
The reason it is legitimate to subsume these stats under the "unwanted or inconvenient" category is that we're dealing with necessary abortions versus voluntary abortions. The only ethically permissible grounds for abortion are (a) it is medically impossible for the child to be born alive (e.g. ectopic pregnancy), and (b) having the child would ensure the death of the mother. All other grounds, crucial as they may be, are outweighed by the moral obligation to preserve life. Life itself is a higher ethical value than quality of life—always. Any other priority opens a Pandora's box of inhumanity.
Even should we adopt a consequentialist ethic, we still would have to question (a) the truth in comparison to people's assessment of their economic and/or social condition, and (b) the legitimacy of making life or death decisions based on people's perceptions of their economic, social, or even psychological conditions.
My concern was that you seemed to be making the point in reference to the economic problem, and by subsuming that under "unwanted" you swept it under the carpet. It may not be good to have an abortion in a such an instance, but there is a difference between a mother who already can't feed 4 kids and would have another on the way (lets say that she's a recent widow, who just lost her job, and has no community to care for her), and someone who simply wants to hide an affair.
ReplyDeleteSecond concern: I'm puzzled at your argument for the definition of a human being. It seems that just because there is only one neat, clean definition of a human person, it doesn't follow that such a definition is true. Further, there seems to be no reason why such criteria much be "objective" (which, it seems to me, means able to be mechanically applied). Life is messy; why can't definitions be as well?
Besides, there has been a line of conservative Christian thinkers who have had no problem declaring that a fetus is not a person; a genetic human being, yes, but not a person. So it is not necessary on a Christian perspective to declare something to be a person from conception on.
If you think arbitrariness has a place in decision-making about whether a human life is taken, I would say that is a recipe for the self-destruction of the human race. "Life" may be messy, but the origin of life is not: it begins at conception. An argument based on something as abstract as "messiness" is dubious at best. Any other criteria but a biological one leaves the door wide open for horrific judgments. If personhood is accepted as the criteria, then newborn babies, the mentally retarded, and the elderly senile are not persons and can be disposed of however us "persons" decide is best. If this is not an obvious ethical quandary to someone, then that someone is infinitely wicked and an utter menace to society, in the likeness of Hitler.
ReplyDeleteAs far as economic issues go, they belong under the carpet when compared with the ethical obligation not to commit murder. We should not ignore the plights of those in difficult economic situations, and indeed should fight hard to reduce financial hardship and other conditions which influence decisions to have abortions, but this does not take the place of policies which defend the a priori right on which civilized society is built. You're smart. It should be obvious to you that when faced with two evils, we are morally obligated to choose the lesser of the two. Here is how priority is determined: those actions that are morally obligatory trump those that are morally permissible; when two morally obligatory actions conflict, a hierarchical decision must be made. In the case of human life, the right to continue that life trumps the privilege to enjoy a particular quality of life. Murder is worse than neglect and poverty and social collapse.
This ethic has much more far-reaching implications, extending to euthanasia, stem-cell research, genetic engineering, etc. The stakes are literally life and death. Back to the issue of burden: (a) It is impossible to objectively determine when a human being becomes a "person"; (b) it is possible to be wrong when using subjective criteria; (c) human life hangs in the balance of this decision; (d) human life is the preeminent right of humanity; (e) human life must not depend on uncertain criteria. Consider a parallel in criminal law: due process states that convicted persons are innocent until proven guilty. The basic principle on which this is based applies to the decision about when life begins: alive until proven otherwise. Stated another way, personhood is to be defined biologically. The consequences of the alternative decisions make this clear: If life does begin at conception, and we decide not to protect life at that stage, then innocent human life is taken—the climax of immorality and injustice; but if life begins at a later point, but we treat it as beginning at conception, then no moral obligation has been violated.
I would take it that "personhood" is referring to something real; as such, we have to look for the truth of it and not merely what is convenient for our arguments. As such, putting forth a biological view simply because it is an easy way out is unacceptable, and we need to dig through all of the complexities involved. So, I don't care if another answer leaves open a door to ("horrific") difficulties; what I care about is whether those difficulties are real. Truth matters more than what I want to be true.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just because someone isn't a person, doesn't mean that we should simply dispose of them; there are other features of humanity which would call for attention, and even besides that there is a general respect for life. Slippery slope arguments are horribly fallacious; they are pure rhetoric, and I expect better from you, Matt.
Again, my point with the economic problems is not whether or not they justify abortions, but your rhetorical move to dismiss them. Argue against them cleanly if you feel the need, but don't bring them up and then wave your hand to make them magically disappear.
Also, the law-court analogy doesn't really apply. We have reason for thinking that fetuses are not like human beings; not only have prior (even Christian) cultures not seem them as such, but there seems to be a huge difference between two cells coming together, and an adult human being with a life, dreams, relationships, experiences, and all those other things which seem to constitute personhood.
If nothing else, your statement about naivete and murder applies to you as much as the other side.
Concerning subjective criteria, we live life based on subjective criteria all the time, making incredibly important decisions on less than objective information (unless we pretend to ourselves that everything is really sure and certain). It sucks, but I really don't see why this area of life should be any different. Again, I'm looking for why it is different, not why it would be convenient to be different.
refreshing to read (i'm having a bad night.. politically speaking). :)
ReplyDeletemost pro-choice people, who typically deny that a life begins at conception, can at least admit that it can't be pinpointed, scientifically, when a "life becomes a life." my thinking on that is, aren't we better safe than sorry? if it's even slightly questionable, in any way, and abortion *might possibly* be destroying a life, how could it ever be justified?
i just recently got into a discussion with someone from my work (and i can't begin to count how many times i've had similar discussions), where a "pro-choice" person defends abortion rights as "women's rights" or "the right to choose." i asked this person if it's always absolutely good to give people the right to choose. he said yes (completely ridiculous, but frighteningly common) in order to defend his argument. so of course i was able to give countless examples of choices people make that are dangerous to other people. the whole "choice" thing is ridiculous.. and it's such a popular argument, that "choice" is inherently good. that implies that people never "choose" things that are evil or destructive. we might as well not even have laws or government since people apparently always make perfect choices, as long as they're "allowed" to make them.
i'm starting to think liberals would be perfectly willing to find a way to "abort" everyone who makes them feel threatened or uncomfortable in any way. so i think defining personhood and making that definition as all-encompassing as possible is definitely in all of our best interests.
sorry so dismal. like i said, bad night.
annie
Michael,
ReplyDeletePersonhood is certainly something real, and I agree that discovering the precise nature of it is our goal. But I dare say that such a discovery is impossible by either scientific or logical means. There is only one way to authoritatively answer the question of what actually counts as personhood: special revelation by the One who ordered the universe. But that will not hold up in a court of law or a secular constitution, so the point is moot for the purposes of the present issue (criminalizing abortion in the U.S.).
Because it is impossible to establish a definition of personhood with 100% certainty that it precisely describes actual personhood, we are morally obligated to go above and beyond to take steps that will ensure that there will be no way possible to murder persons. If there comes a point in time when we are able to absolutely, objectively establish when a human being becomes a person, only at that point we can base our ethical decisions on that criteria.
As regards the slippery slope argument, not all such arguments are necessarily fallacious. Some are, and we have to be careful to avoid them, but the present argument is clearly not. I illustrated three real-life, present-day examples of the implications of the psycho-social definition of personhood. Just because these are not necessary or obligatory impacts does not mean they do not logically follow, and if they logically follow, then that essentially legalizes them. And if they are actualized even once, precedent is established in Law.
I have ignored your appeals to prior 'Christian civilizations', because tradition plays no role in science, and we're talking about science as it intersects ethics. Even still, the earliest Christian communities were outraged by infanticide, as evidenced by their frantic and valiant efforts to rescue infants left by the road to die.
I am so enlightened that you pointed out that fetuses and adults are different. Are they really??? In all seriousness, it is not what makes them different that determines their humanness, but what they have in common, namely, homo sapien DNA. Do you mean to suggest that an 8 month old "fetus" is not a person, even when children as young as 6 months can be born viable? We need to get the facts on the table before we proceed any further. The psycho-social developmental view of personhood as posited by Mary Anne Warren in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" (1973... date ring any bells?) delineates five criteria:
1) Consciousness of things external and internal to oneself, and especially the ability to feel pain.
2) Reasoning ability.
3) Self-motivated activity, i.e., ability that is independent of genetic or external control--e.g., abilities to suck thumb or do patty-cake with parents' lead do not count.
4) Ability to communicate with an indefinite number of contents and topics.
5) Presence of self-concepts and self-awareness.
Is this satisfactory to you? Do any one of these criteria concern you? Her thesis is that all five of this must be present in order to have a person. But this definition fails to protect even children who have been born, as well as elderly and mentally retarded people. Depending on how you interpret it, it could rule out all people (cf. #4)! Yet this is the definition on which the Roe v. Wade determination was based.
Get Feinberg's book.
No, wait until he publishes the new edition, which should be coming out before too long.
ReplyDeleteAnnie,
ReplyDeleteThanks as well for your contribution to the discussion!
1) You have not established that personhood is only definable on Biblical grounds. You appeal to that as an excuse to dodge the question of really defining what a person is, through hard work instead of pathos. And any Biblical view will need solid exegesis, not random quote-throwing.
ReplyDelete2) You argue that since we can't establish a definition of personhood, we are morally obligated to make it as broad as possible. That's the exact same procedure that the rabbis used in developing their fence around the law (and offences against God are even more heinous than offences against man); and Jesus rejected that. Deal with the reality, whether or not it's easy and neat.
3) All slippery slope arguments are fallacious in and of themselves. It is a classical logical fallacy. What doesn't follow necessarily, doesn't follow logically either. Besides, you have not given me three actual examples; an actual example would be a really historical, social situation, properly understood within its context, that supports your point solidly and under scrutiny.
4) You deny scientific definitions of personhood, so you cannot appeal to science in denying the thought of previous generations. Besides, the issue is at least as much a philosophical one, and there has been much good Christian philosophy done in the past. Their thought is also quite compatible on this point with contemporary science, even if not in others. Just because it is inconvenient for you to accept them, or because their basis helps something like Roe v. Wade, doesn't mean that they are wrong.
5) Human DNA does not make you a person. It makes you human. Again, killing a two-celled organism is not the same as killing a grown, functioning adult. It may still be wrong, but it is not the same, unless you are working with an abstract justice that has left behind the concrete world. Even if you don't like this view, it is reasonable enough to take seriously (just as the view that capital punishment or war is murder, whether right or wrong, can be put in a reasonable fashion).
6) I'm fine with that definition of personhood, at least for defining full persons. Again, there may be (I would say there are) reasons for protecting human beings who are not full persons. But we don't treat children, the senile, or the insane as if they had full rights anyhow, even as Christians. We govern them, we plan their lives for them, we in general remove from them standard things associated with personhood in any robust, standard sense.
7) Concerning Feinberg's book, a) I've been less than enthused about his arguments in other areas, and b) as I've reviewed in my points above, I've yet to see anything logically rigorous in what you're presenting, so I have reason to not expect more from the book you are lauding.
We have a duty to present our view to the world in a way that honestly engages it, despite the painful work that entails. In general I want nothing to do with a work or school of thought if it cannot either a) address the opposing views on their own terms (if it's false, it's false no matter how hard you try to shore it up, and defeating a strawman doesn't help anyone), and b) cannot criticize it's own side (we love our friends, but we love the truth more). I see very little in conservative Evangelical circles that perform these two basic, necessary requirements of any honest intellectual inquiry. This might be fine for discussion simply within the church, but it is despicable for any sort of public engagement.
1. I did define what a person is: a human life.
ReplyDelete2. Dealing with reality means dealing with facts; the fact is that we know when life begins; all sociological and psychological determinations are arbitrary and not factual. My point is precisely that we must deal with concrete facts and not speculation.
3. Accepting by fiat your construal of a slippery slope, I am not guilty of it. Terri Schiavo (sp?) is a historical example.
4. Blatantly false statement. I do not deny scientific definitions. Such a definition is precisely what I am pleading for, over against psychological and sociological definitions, which deal not with matter and energy, but metaphysics.
5. You have not proven that being human does not make one a person. I cannot use a proof that humanness = personhood to establish my contention that humanness = personhood, which is what I am attempting to establish. You also have not even offered an argument for your contention that killing a two-celled human is "different" (define different!) than killing an adult. To do so, you would have to prove that two-celled humans are not persons, and that you have not done.
6. I am also fine with making certain distinctions between human beings at various developmental stages. We treat them differently, without a doubt. Yet there are basic rights possessed by both, that are defended under the Constitution. Murdering newborn babies carries equal weight under U.S. Law as does murdering adults. Murder is murder because it is intentionally taking an innocent human life, not the life of a "person" as defined by Warren.
7. Don't judge the book by my efforts to communicate what he takes 90 pages to do. The nature of the present media makes it virtually impossible to comprehensively argue a point as complex as the present one. On that note, I appreciate the hearty dialogue, but I'm afraid I can't sustain it indefinitely due to other obligations. Thanks for the sharpening.
Feel free to have the last word. :)