Once again: A stupid long post.
On my last post (and its side notes), a thoughtful commenter brought up some common objections to my theory as to what is required to allow abortion. I’ve reproduced in full (with minor edits for brevity’s sake) and responded below.
—
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that women are also human beings who have their own set of rights. The real issue, then, is the competition of rights between the parties. So lets talk about the situations in which abortion usually comes up.
Rape: Lots of people have been getting in trouble for talking abortion in this context, but in all honesty, I don’t see how anyone can look a woman in the eye and force her to carry and birth a baby conceived by rape. Putting aside the unfairness to the woman (and the faultless child), I would say that the woman’s right to control her body in this instance trumps the unborn baby’s right to live. I’m not saying a woman SHOULD abort such a child; I’m saying that if she chooses this option, she should be allowed to do so because her rights are superior.
First, I need to note that this is an extremely contentious issue because I know rape is such an emotional, traumatic, insane situation. I recognize this and my sympathies go to the women (and men) who are victims of such senseless acts.
Second, rape is not reason to keep abortion completely legal in all cases; at most it could be applied to cases of rape. Higher estimates suggests that 83,000 pregnancies result from rape each year. There are ~4,000,000 abortions each year. If every single woman who got pregnant from rape aborted (which they don’t), the number of abortions-from-rape would be 2% of the total abortions. To say we need unrestricted access to abortion because of this would be to say that we need to outlaw seat belts because they result in people being trapped in their cars after accidents so the people burn to death. It doesn’t make sense.
Third––I must say it again––rape is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible thing and I have seen the evil it wrecks upon women and families. I also know several people who are the product of rape and I cannot concede that they are miseries upon their mothers. If I said, “Killing people solves problems” you’d think I was crazy––you’d think I was a drone-bomb-loving, death-penalty-supporting war-monger. This is what you’re suggesting: In order to solve a problem, kill a person. I cannot agree.
We must help and give money and support and whatever else a girl needs. We should have homes for people who were raped to go to get psychological counseling, free medical care, and whatever help they need. For raped women who become pregnant, this goes triple. I will never agree that killing someone is the solution to a problem. (This also snowballs into the realm of adoption reform, etc. We need that, too. The adoption laws in this country are stupid.)
Why is this so ? Because our society has already recognized that a person’s right to control their own body is paramount, even if this results in another person’s death.
Sometimes. Society has also recognized that the state can compel people to submit to the state’s control of their bodies. I’ll discuss more below as I address your examples.
Example: I have terminal cancer and need a bone marrow transplant from you to live. I ask you to donate your marrow to save my life and you say no, for whatever reason. Maybe you hate needles. Maybe you hate me. Whatever the reason, you have the right to say no, to control your own body, even if this leads to my death. The police cannot tie you down and extract your marrow against your will, nor do they have the right to imprison you just because your choice will inexorably lead to my death. Your right to control your body trumps my right to live.
I presume you’re talking about McFall v. Shimp. To the uninitiated, this is a case in which a man wanted the state to force his cousin to give him a bone marrow transplant after his cousin refused. The court refused to compel the cousin, holding: “You cannot compel someone to submit to a bodily invasion––to do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.”
My response:
This is a recursive argument in the abortion case. I would submit that having a cannula inserted into your skull and your brains removed would qualify as a bodily invasion. I would also submit that the forcible removal and delivery of your stem cells to research companies would also qualify as a bodily invasion. The state has compelled a fetus to submit to a bodily invasion for the sake of another.
Example 2: I need a kidney and, luckily for me, someone recently passed away and this person’s kidney is healthy and is a perfect match ! However, the person is adamantly against organ donation, either because it goes against his religious beliefs, or maybe he just thinks it’s “icky.” He has made his wishes known to his family and his family staunchly refuses to give me his organ, EVEN THOUGH HE’S ALREADY DEAD, to save my life. I would have no recourse to force that person’s family into giving me the kidney. In other words, a person’s right to control their own body trumps my right to live, EVEN after that person has already passed away.
I’d like to note that this example isn’t very far-fetched; dozens of people die every day because of a shortage of organ donors. But this fact alone doesn’t mean we can legally make organ donation compulsory.
This is a good example, but is also distinguishable.
First, states do make organ donation compulsory. It’s been ruled that it’s okay for a state to have an organ opt-out program: that is, it’s assumed that you’ll donate your organs and you have to explicitly opt-out to not have them donated after your death. I understand that the opt-out means it’s not compulsory, per se, but the laws are so little-known that they are de facto compelling people to donate.
Second, courts have also ruled that it’s quite alright to compel posthumous organ donation. Several states require that all mortuaries remove the corneas from the eyes of cadavers and put them in a cornea bank for the blind. Albeit, corneas are not as spectacular-sounding as kidneys, but they’re still organs and the state can compel the removal of organs.
Disclaimer 1: This example doesn’t work too well in other situations. A woman that was raped had no control over whether or not she became pregnant. However, if she became pregnant from her own choices, one could make the argument that her rights do not trump those of the child. After all, If I contracted cancer because of YOUR actions, maybe my right to live should prevail.
Agreed. And if your right to live shouldn’t prevail, it should at least be equal to everybody else’s right to live. That is, the state can’t allow an active campaign against your receipt of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Disclaimer 2: I don’t support abortion. I don’t like it and I think it’s a horrible procedure. If a female friend or relative came to me and asked me my opinion, I would do all I can to persuade them against taking that course of action. The difference between us is I think the choice should be made by the woman, not the state.
See my closing paragraph below.
Life of the mother: I talked to one of our classmates a few weeks ago. His wife had just gone into labor at Covenant and delivered a healthy baby. He told me the hospital informed him that, if it came down to saving his wife or saving his baby, the hospital would chose to save his baby over his wife. We assumed this conclusion was a result of the hospital’s Catholic roots.
I’m sorry for your friend. Having a wife who nearly died in childbirth, I can say this would have made the situation even more tense. That being said, this hospital has an incorrect view of the Catholic Church’s teachings on this. If the life of the mother was at stake, the Principle of Double Effect would come into play. The Principle is as follows:
- the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
- the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
- the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.
In this example, the nature of the act of saving the mother’s life and the child’s life are both good; the act of someone dying in a medical procedure (without the intent to kill them) is morally neutral. The doctors are working with the intent to save both lives and is not set on ending the life of one to save the life of another. The saving of the life of the mother or the child is good and outweighs the effect of the morally neutral death of someone due to natural causes.
The hospital was dead wrong and should have a disclosure statement saying that, “In the event of complications, every effort will be made to protect the life of the mother and the baby, however, the hospital will not be held liable in the event that the mother’s life or the child’s life is not protected.” If you could privately message me the name of this hospital so I can find this release, I’d be most appreciative. [EDIT: This disclaimer would only apply to ectopic pregnancies, not the in-labor situations. See next paragraph.]
EDIT: My wife just read my post and took issue with this section. I should clarify that the principle of double effect and my application of it was in application to ectopic pregnancies. In the “in labor” example, it is (I’ve been informed) Catholic hospital policy to sign a release that the life of the baby will take priority. The Principle would still apply (since it’s universal, and all), but would, by consent, have a different result.
Side note: I would be interested to hear of situations in which this is actually plausible; that is, where, at the time of birth, both the mother and the child could be saved, but they only choose the baby.
Regardless of whether this is fair or not, I think this view is the minority view. Even among most people who are fiercely anti-abortion, my hunch is that the majority would allow it in some extreme cases, especially if it threatened the life of the mother. I don’t know where you stand on this, I personally also conform to the majority view. When the question changes from choice v. life, to life v. life, the woman’s rights should always prevail.
See above. The Principle of Double effect allows for the death of the baby when saving a mother’s life, so long as the intent is not to kill the baby. Ectopic pregnancies are the most common example of this: Without a procedure, both the mother and the child will die, with a procedure, the mother will live, and every effort must be taken to save the child, although it’s nearly impossible for the child to ever live. You don’t set out with the intent to kill a person to solve a problem.
If people want to have an honest conversation, like you suggest, then I don’t think they can simply oppose all abortions and refuse to admit that exceptions should exist. Last I checked, the GOP’s platform states that they are against all abortions, without exceptions. I know that people who oppose all abortion in every case do so because they believe they are sticking to their morals or principles, but I think doing so really hurts their cause because it alienates otherwise persuadable members of society. So while they may have their principles, sticking to such rigid beliefs really get them nowhere closer to their goal.
I don’t know the GOP’s platform. I think they have plenty to answer for on life issues, themselves. I’m not a Republican.
See above on the exceptions thing. In the situation of the life of the mother, the death of the baby can be an unfortunate consequence, but it should not be the intended consequence.
“Recreational” abortion: This is, I think, the most controversial aspect of this discussion. If you think that life is sacred and god given, then it’s really hard to sympathize with a woman who wishes to have an abortion just to save herself from the responsibilities that come from her choices. I’ll readily admit that I’m torn on this form of abortion, and If it were to be made illegal, I probably wouldn’t have too much trouble with it.
Me either.
But I don’t think it’s as simple as one party denying another the right to live. The right to control our own bodies is one of our fundamental rights. A woman having an abortion is exercising her right to control her own body; the baby only dies as a result because its survival is contingent on being allowed to subsist off the woman’s body. This is fundamentally different from other acts that deprive others of life, such as murder. I’m not saying this difference alone should be enough to allow abortion to remain legal, but I don’t think it should be ignored.
I agree that abortion is a peculiar situation because the life of one human depends so heavily upon another and the child also presents an extreme bodily invasion. However, I must go back to what I said in the side note: I’m not prepared to say that one human’s rights trump another humans rights because that presupposes persons and sub-persons. Superior rights verses inferior rights. Menschen verses Untermenschen. Every single society that has taken this point of view has looked back in shame upon the injustice they foisted upon others.
To say this is a choice that should be made by the woman, or the en vogue statement that, “Until I have a uterus, I’ll keep my mouth shut” is terribly short-sighted. I am not mouthless because I am a man. I would never tell a female research biologist who is an advocate for a regulation requiring male truck-drivers to take leg-stretching breaks every x hours because she’s concerned about their prostate. Universal principles are universal and can be applied universally by anyone in the universe. My universal principle: It’s not okay to deny personhood to humans.
Furthermore, I understand the consequences of children and carrying children. As I said before, my wife nearly died in child birth. This is not an issue I take lightly. I understand the extent to what I’m suggesting: You must carry a consumptus inside you that causes great discomfort, is constantly consuming your nutrients, causes you to puke, etc., etc. But I cannot get past the idea that abortion requires us to deny personhood to living humans. And, if not an outright denial, a treatment of some humans as having superior rights than others. I am not okay with saying, “You are a person, and you––you are 3/5 of a person.”
The King's Good Servant, And God's First 