Issue Position: Abortion

Issue Position

This is an almost unique opportunity for me to antagonize both sides in the argument. Both pro-choice and pro-life supporters use slogans that emphasize valid concerns but ignore the valid concerns of the other side. The problem is that abortion is a moral dilemma. And we don't want to admit that it's a moral dilemma, because when we do, there is no simple answer.

On behalf of pro-life supporters I would point out that we clearly agree that at some point in the lives of human beings, they are entitled to protection. On behalf of pro-choice supporters I note that there is a whole spectrum of miseries that can go with carrying an unintended child to term. At some point, the "right" to protection comes to be a more important consideration than that whole spectrum of miseries. The question is, "Where?"

And there is no answer. If you think I'm wrong about that, be patient.

There is no obvious answer in religion. Until the end of the 17th Century, Christians believed that the soul did not enter the body until five days after birth. This meant that parents could dispose of newborn children they could not support without committing a sin. At the other extreme, the present position of the Catholic Church against contraception seems to be protecting the right of an unfertilized ovum to be fertilized. There is nothing in scripture to justify either position.

There is no obvious answer in biology. The process of fertilization is essentially a matter of taking a cell with 23 chromosomes and adding 23 more chromosomes to it. Some people obviously believe that the cell with 46 chromosomes is radically more important than the cell with 23. But why? Even if we say it has the potential of becoming an adult human, the cell with 46 chromosomes is only marginally more likely to become an adult human than the cell with 23. There are a thousand pitfalls left along the way.

Or look at it this way: Scientists are now able to convert skin cells into stem cells. They are making rapid progress toward using stem cells to grow new tissues for patients. But it is well within the realm of possibility that stem cells meant for this purpose could one day be grown into a human being. Will we be obliged to do this just because the cell has 46 chromosomes and can become a human? I hear someone saying, "But it wasn't made in the normal way." But what difference does being inside a fallopian tube make? Do not turn to science for an answer.

We might try asking what it is that makes a human more deserving of protection than, say, a dairy cow. And we might answer that it is the way humans think. In that case, we could argue that the human cortex does not start to become myelinated until after birth. The cortex doesn't work until it is myelinated, and myelination isn't reasonably complete until a year after birth. We might say a newborn human has a brain like that of a large reptile. That seems to be taking us back to a position more extreme than that of 17th Century Christians, and rational though it might be, let's just forget about it.

There is no answer.

What does a wise legislator do when confronted with a moral dilemma? If there were a cultural consensus, it might be argued that it is wise to accept the cultural consensus, but whether you think that would be wisdom or not doesn't matter. There is no consensus.

In the absence of an unequivocal reason to punish people, I think the wise legislator declines to punish anyone. I'd even go so far as to say I think the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was fairly wise. By setting quickening as a standard, they picked a point in time at which few people in our culture would object to banning abortion. That's a cultural consensus even if there's no consensus on earlier abortions.

Source