A Liberal Argument Against Abortion

[DL82]

Classical political liberalism recommends that the state is neutral towards different ‘private’ conceptions of the good, i.e. different beliefs that people have about how they ought to live their own life, provided these ways of life do not restrict others’ rights and freedoms. This is a principle that can claims such supporters as JS Mill and John Rawls. It is also a principle embedded in America’s constitution and history, through the right to freedom of religion.

At the same time, liberalism counts the rights of the individual person as being of supreme value. Murder cannot be accepted on the grounds of a ‘greater good’, precisely because each individual has the right to decide his or her own ‘good’.

But the issue of abortion is not a ‘private’ belief, because it (potentially) involves another person.

What we have are two groups of people who hold different beliefs about what constitutes a human person, on the one hand, those who affirm the personhood of the unborn child, on the other, those who deny it. Both have good philosophical reasons for their beliefs, which start from totally different points, and so cannot be synthesized.

Further, these are philosophical reasons, and so they are not amenable to empirical proof. Nobody can prove that the unborn fetus is or is not a person through any kind of research. The question must remain philosophically unsettled.

What we have, therefore, is a situation where (from the perspective of the liberal state) a certain group of objects may or may not be human beings.

We must then consider the options for acting mistakenly. If the affirmers are correct, and we ignore their arguments, the result is that we permit the murder of human persons, which is totally unacceptable. If the deniers are correct, and we ignore their arguments, the result is that some people are inconvenienced, even gravely inconvenienced, without cause. In the first case, we deny a person their basic rights, in the second, we merely limit unnecessarily the availability of ‘secondary’ goods (i.e. things which allow some people to pursue their conception of the good). While secondary goods, in a Rawlsian liberal account, should be maximised as far as possible in the service of all (and especially the least advantaged), they can never be used as an excuse to deprive a person of their basic rights, the primary goods (life, food, freedom) that give them their dignity as human persons.

Consider the worst discomfort and inconvenience you could possibly be in. If the way to end this pain were to kill a baby, we would all say that this was an unacceptable solution. Natural law, human intuition, and liberal principle, combine to rule out infanticide.

Now, imagine the same situation, but with the object you are killing either being or not being a baby, and there being no observable proof one way or the other (similar to the problem posed by Shrodinger’s Cat dilemma). Because there is simply no proof in either direction, it is not possible to weigh up the ‘odds’ in any way. An act of type x is required to end this pain and discomfort, and that act of type x may or may not be equal to the act of killing a baby. According to Shrodinger, such an act both does and does not kill a baby in equal measure, though such an account doesn’t seem to sit right with Catholic moral intuitions. Nonetheless, from an ideologically neutral (and thus, acceptable for liberal politics) standpoint, this act is, in part, the act of killing a baby, not the act of killing part of a baby, but the act of killing and not killing at the same time. Given this uncertainty principle, it seems wrong that such an act (which involves an attack, albeit an uncertain attack, on fundamental personal rights) could ever be permitted merely for the advancement of ‘secondary’ goods such as comfort and convenience.

There may be other consequences for such an account, for example, those who argue that animals also have an inalienable right to life, whose argument also does not rest on empirical facts about animals’ nervous or cognitive features, but on a philosophical principle, may also need to be accommodated by the principle of uncertainty as to the identities of rights-bearing persons. All the same, such accommodation seems a small price to pay to ensure that we defend the rights of all those who are, or may be rationally presumed to be, persons.

 

[ribozyme]

Apparently, this is your own original work as your post did not match anything to google. Believe me, people here could care less about Rawls. People in here hate Rawls as he advocated moderate redistibution (due to his “difference principle”) which you have pointed out here.

I am more of a Singer liberal than a Rawlsian liberal now, but I think Rawls’ ideas are superior to Catholic social teaching and especially the more conservative interpretations of it found here.

 

[Spirithound]

Apparently, this is your own original work as your post did not match anything to google. Believe me, people here could care less about Rawls. People in here hate Rawls as he advocated moderate redistibution (due to his “difference principle”) which you have pointed out here.

I am more of a Singer liberal than a Rawlsian liberal now, but I think Rawls’ ideas are superior to Catholic social teaching and especially the more conservative interpretations of it found here.

Is this a record? Second post and we’re already off-topic!

 

[ribozyme]

Is this a record? Second post and we’re already off-topic!

Rawls was mentioned in the opening post. I am simply saying that Rawls’ ideas are simply not palatable for many people here. If I remember correctly, Rawls supported abortion.

 

[Spirithound]

Rawls was mentioned in the opening post. I am simply saying that Rawls’ ideas are simply not palatable for many people here. If I remember correctly, Rawls supported abortion.

Well sure he was mentioned, but really only to say that “secondary goods” should be maximized as much as possible. The main point of the article, however was to say that if we don’t know whether the fetus is a person or not, we shouldn’t kill it, because it might have rights. I haven’t read any of Rawls’ work, but if this is his view, I like him.

 

[DL82]

OK, getting back on topic, I only mentioned Rawls because he has a two-level distinction between the kinds of rights that are inalienable, and the kinds of good that are ‘secondary’, i.e. good but not worth sacrificing rights for. You can see the same division, I believe, in America’s Bill of Rights, which talks about all men being given inalienable rights, but also people having the right to the pursuit of happiness.

The main point of my article (which is indeed original work) is that there is no way to ‘prove’ in a liberal framework whether the fetus is a human being or not. There is no proof one way or the other, because both sides’ evidence rests on their ‘private’ beliefs. My inspiration for this came from watching a recent debate in the UK Parliament over reducing the time limit for abortion. Only 1 speaker (right-wing Catholic convert and all-round ultra-conservative Ann Widdecombe) mentioned the moral dimension. Instead, the debate focussed entirely on ‘viability’, as though the only thing that made a human being a human being was whether doctors could keep it alive outside the womb. It struck me that this was the wrong approach - if a fetus is a human being from conception, irrespective of its’ ability to survive independently, this is a fact that is known a priori, and although evidence can be presented in support, it is not really an evidential matter but a matter of how we define the word ‘human life’. (sadly, the abortion time limit was not reduced.)

Given that the liberal state, which should remain neutral on matters of religious faith and philosophical opinion, cannot therefore ‘know’ for sure whether the fetus is a human life or not, all that can be said is that (as far as we can know) abortion both kills and does not kill in equal measure. It is not that abortion kills in some cases but not in others, but every abortion shares partially in the act of killing because the act of killing may be reasonably assumed to be included in the act of abortion. Because it’s not an empirical matter, it is not the case that the government can say ‘let’s investigate’ and hope to find the answer to whether the fetus is a human life or not, through a grant to a science faculty or a senate committee hearing, the government can only say (within the norms of liberal neutrality) ‘this is unknowable’.

It is as if you are blindfolded and given a gun, the thing in front of you may be a paper target or it may be a person, but you have to shoot it before you can take off the blindfold. Would it not be better to keep the blindfold on (i.e. give up the relative good of seeing) rather than risk depriving someone of the absolute good of living?

 

[mapleoak]

Further, these are philosophical reasons, and so they are not amenable to empirical proof. Nobody can prove that the unborn fetus is or is not a person through any kind of research. The question must remain philosophically unsettled.

It is an undeniable and scientific fact that new, unique, and separate human life complete with its own DNA, exists from conception onward.

 

[DL82]

It is an undeniable and scientific fact that new, unique, and separate human life complete with its own DNA, exists from conception onward.

Yes, but this scientific fact does not prove anything. The philosophical position ‘a human person equals a separate human entity with its own DNA’ does not follow logically from the statement above. The pro-choice lobby would argue that ‘a human person equals a separate human entity that is capable of surviving independently outside the womb’. These two definitions are based on different philosophical assumptions about human life, which cannot be settled by science.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The problem with the viability argument is that a newborn baby also requires constant care. If left alone, he or she will die. I understand that Singer advocates parents should have the right to kill their baby at up to 28 days after birth and if they determine that their baby is too much of an inconvenience or if disabled, too difficult to care for, or in their opinion would have a low ‘quality of life’. they should be able to kill him or her without facing a murder charge.

Even after 28 days, a baby cannot survive without constant care. At what age would you say that they can survive ‘independently’? One year?, two?, three?, ten?, when they are old enough to get a job and feed, clothe and house themselves and until then, they are not ‘persons’ under the law?

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, but this scientific fact does not prove anything. The philosophical position ‘a human person equals a separate human entity with its own DNA’ does not follow logically from the statement above.

It does because all philosophical positions would deny that a human person could be anything but a separate and unique human entity. One person can not be at the same time another person.

If a particular philosophical position depends on the existence of a human soul, it becomes a matter of faith. To an aetheist, whether or not a soul exists does not determine whether the unborn is a person since it does not determine whether anyone else is a person either. Therefore, for an aethiest, it has to be based solely on scientific or material basis. And it is undisputable that a separate living organism having all of the properties of a very young person exists. Just as science would indicate that a very young tree is nevertheless still a tree.

The pro-choice lobby would argue that ‘a human person equals a separate human entity that is capable of surviving independently outside the womb’.

Most intelligent people in the pro-choice lobby have already seen the wisdom in abandoning this argument because they now realize that it reduces their credibility as it does when someone claims the moon is made of cheese. The ones who still maintain that it is not a human person from conception are only indicating ignorance.

 

[vz71]

Yes, but this scientific fact does not prove anything.

It may not prove anything at all.
But it very efficiently puts the pro-abortion side in a very uncomfortable position.
They are left with two possiblities:
Either they redefine human life to exclude the moment of conception; which reduces their credibility as the definition can be shown as arbitrary…or they are left with the nasty task of explaining why some people should not be allowed to live.

 

[Patrick60]

I believe there are parallels between abortion and the Dred Scott decision. Both had to do with personhood, and two groups on either side, affirming or denying the personhood.

Ultimately, beyond all possible rhetoric, the abortion issue is one of the personhood of the unborn child. When one person ends the life of another person, for whatever reason, it is murder. Unless the personhood of the unborn is recognized, there will be those who will attempt to justify their murder.

 

[KestrelRose]

I realize that this is a very high level discussion but I do want to add my thoughts.

As a woman, when I learned that I was pregnant, the life within me was a real person to me.

The thought crossed my mind, that in order for this life to be a person, the decision is made by the mother.

This is the choice that a woman actually makes: this life within me is not a person, I will destroy it. Or, this life within me is a person and I will not destroy it.

The power of life and death is now in the hands of women. We get to choose whether or not this life is a person or not. It really does not matter what any other argument is made.

(I do not accept this train of thought. There is no question in my mind that the soul of each person is created at the time of conception)

 

[Swan]

The problem with the viability argument is that a newborn baby also requires constant care. If left alone, he or she will die. I understand that Singer advocates parents should have the right to kill their baby at up to 28 days after birth and if they determine that their baby is too much of an inconvenience or if disabled, too difficult to care for, or in their opinion would have a low ‘quality of life’. they should be able to kill him or her without facing a murder charge.

Even after 28 days, a baby cannot survive without constant care. At what age would you say that they can survive ‘independently’? One year?, two?, three?, ten?, when they are old enough to get a job and feed, clothe and house themselves and until then, they are not ‘persons’ under the law?

It’s not that the baby can survive on its own - you are correct that a newborn (and children up to several years) require outside care to survive. The difference, though, is that following birth that care can be given by any one or a number of people whereas prior to birth all sustenance comes from the pregnant woman.

 

[Linda_Marie]

It’s not that the baby can survive on its own - you are correct that a newborn (and children up to several years) require outside care to survive. The difference, though, is that following birth that care can be given by any one or a number of people whereas prior to birth all sustenance comes from the pregnant woman.

I know you shrugged, but I’m just wondering what difference that makes. It has been determined scientifically that the baby is not a part of the woman. It has its own separate and unique human DNA. It is not a growth, like a cancer, possessing the mother’s DNA, a part of her body. Perhaps they are viewing the baby as a parasite, and when he/she can stop being a ‘parasite’ on the mother, he/she has a right to live???

I still think that the viability argument is a red herring. It diverts attention from the truth that even if this child requires time in the womb to live, it is still a human child.

Why does the location of that human being or stage of development have bearing on whether they should be allowed to live? If we lose limbs in an accident, are we less human? If we become quadriplegic and require round the clock care, or lose our minds to dementia, are we less human?

I recall a social studies class many many years ago, when they were talking about war. The teacher made the observation that in order for us to be able to kill the enemy, it is necessary first to de-humanise them in our minds. They were not Germans, they were ‘Krauts’, they were not Italians, but ‘Eye-ties’, they were not Vietnamese, but ‘Gooks’. They are not human so they can be killed without impinging on our consciences. A play on semantics, but it works.

IMO, this is what they have done to the unborn. If the unborn are not human, then it is ok to kill them. It is not a baby, it is a clump of cells, an embryo, a fetus, anything but another unique human being.

 

[Swan]

I know you shrugged, but I’m just wondering what difference that makes. It has been determined scientifically that the baby is not a part of the woman. It has its own separate and unique human DNA. It is not a growth, like a cancer, possessing the mother’s DNA, a part of her body. Perhaps they are viewing the baby as a parasite, and when he/she can stop being a ‘parasite’ on the mother, he/she has a right to live???

I still think that the viability argument is a red herring. It diverts attention from the truth that even if this child requires time in the womb to live, it is still a human child.

Why does the location of that human being or stage of development have bearing on whether they should be allowed to live? If we lose limbs in an accident, are we less human? If we become quadriplegic and require round the clock care, or lose our minds to dementia, are we less human?

I recall a social studies class many many years ago, when they were talking about war. The teacher made the observation that in order for us to be able to kill the enemy, it is necessary first to de-humanise them in our minds. They were not Germans, they were ‘Krauts’, they were not Italians, but ‘Eye-ties’, they were not Vietnamese, but ‘Gooks’. They are not human so they can be killed without impinging on our consciences. A play on semantics, but it works.

IMO, this is what they have done to the unborn. If the unborn are not human, then it is ok to kill them. It is not a baby, it is a clump of cells, an embryo, a fetus, anything but another unique human being.

It makes a lot of different to the woman who has to carry the fetus to term. Let me try to explain from personal experience. I had an abortion 23 or so years ago. I was very sick physically and I was severel depressed. I was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder, BTW. It is time consuming and painful for me to go into the details that led to this terrible situation but what I want to convey to you is this: I was in no way physically or mentally prepared/able to carry that fetus to term. It is not unthinkable that suicide would have resulted. Had there been a way that I could have had the fetus removed and it could have been brought to term outside my body, that would have been the route I would have taken. As it was, I, as the born, fully developed being whose daily life was directly affected by the pregnancy and with the full knowledge of the challenge to my mental health and physical wellbeing, had to be the one to make the best choice I could at the time.

I think that most women who have abortions do so only after a great deal of soul searching. We don’t know the reasons or situations. Mental health is a big issue for me (I’ve been hospitalized for suicidal depression and treated for it w/o having to be hospitalized as well). IOW, it is so easy to say what others “should” do when we don’t know their struggles and desperation. I agree it should be a last resort, however, and should not be done lightly (some women probably do this since some men and women will abandon their child without a backward glance).

I want to add one more issue that has relevance for me and that is sentiency. This is one reason I have been unable to eqate a fetus in early development with a fully developed (9 mos) baby. Setiency as well as nerve development are relatively late. So a baby in early development is not even self-ware let alone able to feel pain. The suggestion that killing one equates killing the other tugs at the emotions in an attempt to get the woman to visualize a “born” 9 mos. baby being murdered when there is, as far as the baby is concerned, a world of difference. The “born” baby is self-aware, does feel pain. Hurting it in any way is heinous. A fetus does not yet have those qualities. This is one of the tactics that I find really dishonest in the pro-life stance. Yes, the fetus will be a baby if it is left to develop fully BUT it isn’t one at the early stage at which most abortions are performed.

I’m sure you’re ready to burn me at the stake at this point and I will no doubt regret my honesty, but as the OP seemed to be seeking a sincere response I thought I’d take my chances.

 

[Biggie]

“The last temptation is the greatest treason
to do the right thing for the wrong reason.”

Greatest treason not only because it fails to recognize the good but also because it does not stand up over time. Germany made similar “rational” decisions. In the T-4 Program, they argued that the hopelessly disabled were consuming resources that were as a result being deprived of soldiers dying for the good of the country. They argued that the mentally ill passing on genes threatened the very survival of the folk. These values outweighed the individual purposes being served by sustaining such people, who were mistakes of nature that in an evolutionary path left uninterrupted would not have survived anyway. Thus began the holocaust, first with the medical execution of disabled infants and children, because they knew their executions would cause the least controversy. The original perpetrators? The greatest medical minds, doctors and psychiatrists, in the country working for the “good of the country”.

I do not agree that one cannot prove when life begins. The proof is a philosophical proof. You have accepted that proof must employ the scientific method to be proof, endowing science with the dignity of religion and casting aside human reason as an instrument of discernment. The results are historically clear and the trajectory is certain and taking place in our own time.

 

[Biggie]

I want to add one more issue that has relevance for me and that is sentiency. This is one reason I have been unable to eqate a fetus in early development with a fully developed (9 mos) baby. Setiency as well as nerve development are relatively late. So a baby in early development is not even self-ware let alone able to feel pain. The suggestion that killing one equates killing the other tugs at the emotions in an attempt to get the woman to visualize a “born” 9 mos. baby being murdered when there is, as far as the baby is concerned, a world of difference. The “born” baby is self-aware, does feel pain. Hurting it in any way is heinous. A fetus does not yet have those qualities. This is one of the tactics that I find really dishonest in the pro-life stance. Yes, the fetus will be a baby if it is left to develop fully BUT it isn’t one at the early stage at which most abortions are performed.:

I do not wish to comment on or diminish the personal aspects of your testimony here.

Your argument as to “sentiency” is inadequate, however. Is a person in a vegetative state “sentient”? Is that person alive? If life is to be defined by the obvious presence of activity or the subjective impression of a subjective experience (you are supposing as to the experience of pain which can only be known by the person experiencing it) you are going to have to broaden your definition of the non-living. If this newly classified non-living person was once alive (ala Terry Schiavo) you are going to have to broaden your definition of death. Now many new classes of individual fall outside the realm of the living, and can thus be disposed of, a kind of new age euphemism for killed but not killed … since they are not alive.

Furthermore, when does sentiency begin, on what hour of what day of gestation? Does the curtain of sentiency descend on all human beings at the same day and hour? If not, then the time when a fetus can be disposed of varies from person to person so in effect any fetus can be disposed of when I say so. Who pronounces sentiency? He is then the decider of life. What is the proof of sentiency? Might it preceed the external manifestations of it? If so, then even if you have it your way a fetus might be sentient before we think he is, and might therefore be killed while alive instead of killed while dead.

Finally, the Lord stands ready to forgive abortion and to heal the broken hearted.

 

[Spirithound]

I was very sick physically and I was severel depressed. I was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I was in no way physically or mentally prepared/able to carry that fetus to term. It is not unthinkable that suicide would have resulted. As it was, I, as the born, fully developed being whose daily life was directly affected by the pregnancy and with the full knowledge of the challenge to my mental health and physical wellbeing, had to be the one to make the best choice I could at the time.

I want to add one more issue that has relevance for me and that is sentiency. Setiency as well as nerve development are relatively late. So a baby in early development is not even self-ware let alone able to feel pain. The suggestion that killing one equates killing the other tugs at the emotions in an attempt to get the woman to visualize a “born” 9 mos. baby being murdered when there is, as far as the baby is concerned, a world of difference. The “born” baby is self-aware, does feel pain. Hurting it in any way is heinous. A fetus does not yet have those qualities.

Not going to burn you at the stake…I’m just playing with my lighter cuz I’m a pyro
Your first point is a very real concern, and it’s one that we can only address through education and a real commitment to chastity.
I see your second point as a red herring. Sentiency is absolutely not a requirement for personhood. For example, the comatose, the senile, the opium addicts? And at what point does a fetus become sentient? Here in Canada, abortions can be given right up until birth. Clearly some sentient beings are being killed here. Tying back in with the OP, if we cannot determine when sentiency occurs (if indeed that should even be a requirement), we must err on the side of preserving a life.

 

[KestrelRose]

youtube.com/watch?v=l7sSWUcBpOk&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=5q1YVFHIA8E&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=X3zQLgIMWXU&feature=related

What would be a civilized person’s reaction if a crazed individual would walk into a hospital, take these tiny babies, immerse them in a saline solution, sever their heads, arms and legs from their bodies?

There is no difference between these tiny little persons and a baby in the womb.

Academic discussions hide the horror of this action. It is my religious belief that killing a 2 year old child is evil. It is my religious belief that killing a child in the womb is evil. If one is not evil, neither is the other.