Personhood in the abortion debate

[LeonardDeNoblac]

That means the government can’t cooperate in outlawing abortion. This sounds like a self imposed impedement to limiting abortion.

What I meant is that the government can’t cooperate in sin, not in the solution.

 

[Magnanimity]

Thanks that was a great read. For the most part, it does gel with the way I see people in the world.

Excellent, I’m glad you got something out of it. The MacMurray book was recommended to me by two religious leaders that I greatly respect (on separate occasions), so I had to get a hold of it. I got a lot out of it myself. He really gives expression to what a lot of us suspect already, I think, about “personhood.”

doesn’t seem to give as much credit to reflection,

This is true. His work does try to be seminal and cohesive in itself, but by his own admission, it is also reactive to the Modern Age’s obsession with “self,” beginning with Descartes’ cogito. So he sees humans in action and in community as most basic, and thought as derivative and secondary.

doesn’t give much thought to a woman’s progeny prior to birth. Which seems to me to be a lost opportunity to further drive home his thesis. If anything, MacMurray’s arguments would only further the personhood of a fetus, or even an embryo, just by virtue of the fact that MacMurray’s view of ‘personhood’ wouldn’t be possible without it. That is to say, women do a great deal of preparing for a family way before they are even capable of producing one. So the personhood of her progeny would be established before she even conceives.

That’s a very interesting take. I hadn’t thought of it like that, but there is undoubtedly something to this—the mother begins this extension of herself into the child and the communion that will exist between them much prior to birth. Quite right. But would there be any implications in the event where a mother has rejected this community of persons, like in the case of a surprise pregnancy where the mother had no intention of bringing a child into the world?

MacMurray writes that a baby “is, in fact, ‘adapted’, so to speak paradoxically, to being unadapted, ‘adapted’ to a complete dependence upon an adult human being. He is made to be cared for. He is born into a love relationship which is inherently personal. …he depends for his existence, that is to say, upon intelligent understanding, upon rational foresight” [of “the mother”] (Persons In Relation, p. 48)

Thoughts?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

But would there be any implications in the event where a mother has rejected this community of persons, like in the case of a surprise pregnancy where the mother had no intention of bringing a child into the world?

If we take MacMurray’s community of persons as being true then there’s one implication that stands out. It doesn’t necessarily have anything directly to do with the mother either. But if scenarios of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies were very common, the implication would be that the community of persons itself has broken down. A degeneration to the point where one of the most important aspects of community building, sex, to a significant extent has lost it’s primary meaning.

For the mother with an unplanned pregnancy, the community of persons would be either strong enough in her life for her to see that keeping the baby is best for everyone. Or the community of persons in her life never manifested enough for her to consider that the baby is worth keeping, and she possibly has an abortion.

I suppose the same line of reasoning that I gave here for pregnancy could also be used for contraception. But because of this gradation of attachment the reasons would be less apparent to anyone.

the mother begins this extension of herself into the child and the communion that will exist between them much prior to birth.

I think the article also used the word birth. Which I suppose could also mean before conception. But I used the word conception to make a point. That point would be tied into my reasoning above regarding unplanned pregnancies and contraception. That being, the community of persons is naturally concerned with the future, and would seem to extend itself into its own progeny. To the point where the personhood of the unconvinced person is already being prepared before their conception (think girls playing with baby dolls). So that upon conception, real personhood is established whether the mother realizes it yet or not. Somewhat of a paradox within the system of ‘community of persons’.

 

[Magnanimity]

But if scenarios of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies were very common, the implication would be that the community of persons itself has broken down. A degeneration to the point where one of the most important aspects of community building, sex, to a significant extent has lost it’s primary meaning.

This is very insightful. I 100% agree.

For the mother with an unplanned pregnancy, the community of persons would be either strong enough in her life for her to see that keeping the baby is best for everyone. Or the community of persons in her life never manifested enough for her to consider that the baby is worth keeping, and she possibly has an abortion.

I have some good friends who are Orthodox, and they are as pro-life as we are, and they are constantly harping on this point too. That is, it just isn’t enough to constantly be telling mothers of unwanted babies that they will be killing an innocent human being in aborting. Without real support (these persons-in-relation that MacMurray speaks of) the mother, especially if she feels alone in her undesired pregnancy, probably implicitly understands what having a baby entails–this mother-child relation and the mutual contribution to each other’s personhood. And that’s just too much for her! With no community around her, it’s just too much. She lacks good reasons for believing that she can pull it off in a way that won’t damage the child (and maybe even herself) in the process. We pro-lifers must be mindful of these contexts.

I think the article also used the word birth. Which I suppose could also mean before conception. But I used the word conception to make a point. That point would be tied into my reasoning above regarding unplanned pregnancies and contraception. That being, the community of persons is naturally concerned with the future, and would seem to extend itself into its own progeny.

I meant to grant your point. I think it’s a good one–no mother just waits around for the ‘magic moment’ of birth. Besides the practical preparations for the oncoming baby in the home, she does much else besides. She sings, hums, plays music for, rubs belly, gets the father to do the same–all beginning the process of real interconnection even while in utero.

 

[MamaJewel]

But that leads to different people having different levels of ‘personhood’ depending on their social connections with others

I think we already see this with the unborn “dead”. Take abortion versus miscarriage. The first-trimester unborn lost to abortion have a greater level of perceived “personhood” than their miscarried first-trimester peers.

Let me explain. A loss from abortion is deemed so much more grievous than a loss from miscarriage (1st trimester). When an infant dies, whether by murder or by natural causes, the loss is tragic and the grief is not any greater for the loss of the dead infant because of murder. The sense of righteous anger and desire for justice will be there in the case of the murdered infant, but the overwhelming grief is there the same from the infant’s loss regardless of the cause of demise.

The everyday person is onto this perspective which pervades society, including within our medical institutions. One would think that if a woman wants her pregnancy to continue and asks for medical intervention when a pre-viable pregnancy seems threatened or if trauma has occurred, it would be given to her. Instead, many women in these situations are told to “let nature take it’s course” and there isn’t much protest outside of the pregnant patients facing such a dilemma. There was once a time when a physician had two patients concerning pregnancy, but that has changed in the past 50 years.

As a society, we haven’t and don’t study early miscarriage the way we chase down causes of neonatal demise and infant deaths. Way fewer babies die to SIDS than die from miscarriage. In fact, fewer babies die from abortion in the US than pregnancies end in miscarriage. The lack of consideration toward all unborn “persons” is proof to many pro-choicers that the pre-viable human is not really a person and pro-lifers are just out to control women’s bodies. (Plz don’t kill the messenger).

If we are going to affect any kind of change in attitudes toward humans in utero (or in vitro), then we have to show the science-based humanity of those individuals. It’s my perspective that medicine will provide artificial wombs well before this century is over. I cringe at what some mad scientists want to do with humans in their earliest stages of life. This isn’t just an abortion matter, it’s a total-life matter.