An Attempt at a Logical Pro-Choice Argument by David Zabinski
|
Return to the main index
I find the abortion debate in the United States very interesting. Due to the logical traditions of the country's founders, especially John Locke (what a writer!) and Thomas Jefferson, it seems that many Americans view life from a slightly liberal point of view, and tend to think of humanity's improvement as a whole when deciding issues. At the same time, though, a strong sense of justice, individualism, and conservative Christian mores seems to pervade the country. For this reason, it seems, pro-choice and pro-life advocates have placed themselves in very distinct camps, with many fence-sitters who generally favor the pro-choice side (but not strongly) holding the peace in the center. Let me propose my elucidation as to the borders between the two distant(?) groups and attempt a reconciliation of their differences.
Many people get emotional in this debate, as is only natural; one side believes it is defending half of society's rights to their own bodies against dominating conservative far-right groups; the other believes it is saving the lives of the youth of the land, whom we are all programmed by evolution (or God) to protect. However, when the arguments all boil down (I don't think I have time or space to address the many intricacies here) they come to this: is an unborn fetus a living human being with all the rights entailed to humans (at least citizens of the Western world)? If the answer is "yes", then surely it is the duty of any good person to defend those rights; if the answer is "no", then surely it is the duty of any good person to protect the right of a woman to her body. What is the answer? It depends (ha ha, any good student should know that that is the only answer in life).
First we must decide: what constitues a living human being? Some would say human DNA; after all, the DNA of an unborn fetus could be a different gender from the mother, so does not DNA define life? Well, not really; a cancerous tumor has DNA; in fact, for the most part, it matches the body's DNA better than any fetus. Despite what some may profer, a fetus / embryo in the first and early second trimester will not survive on its own (I have seen plenty of evidence supporting this), so I believe it is fair to say that the comparison is valid. Don't like comparing an emryo to a cancer? Fine, we'll use that most wonderful organ, the eye. Eyes are the window of the soul; some would say they are the most perfect of God's creations (or the most perfect result of a wonderfully complex evolutional pattern). Do I have the right to remove my own eye if I believe it is detrimental to my health? Well, I think I should. Some may say that this argument is not valid, as an eye will not necessarily develop into another human being in the natural way of things. To this I say two things: neither necessarily will a fetus (abortion used to be the word people used to describe a miscarriage, after all); and who is to say that which is natural is necessarily right? Cancer can be the natural way of things. A cell of my eye if cloned could result in a living being separate from myself; since it is not natural, does that being not have rights? For these arguments, and others, I believe that the importance of human DNA and the natural flow of life is not a valid proof of the existence of human life.
So what is a valid proof of life? I propose that intelligence is what sets humans apart, though it does not necessarily make us human. I propose that DNA makes us unique, though it does not necessarily make us human. I propose that compassion makes us good, though it does not necessarily make us human. Though each of these does not necessarily make us human, together I believe they do. So the answer to the abortion debate is: does the unborn fetus think? Does it feel? Does it have human DNA? If so, its right should be protected.
In fact, in the later second and early third trimester these specifications seem to hold true. Brain waves are detectable, reactions can be observed, and of course the DNA is all there. So I would say that the rights of third trimester and possibly late second trimester fetuses should be protected.
But first and early second? Through careful observation of medical data, I fail to find a true sign of intelligence or compassion in an emryo or fetus of this age. It simply hasn't developed yet. Some may say that medical technology has not advanced to the level at which such activity can be observed; this may be true. I may move my cut-off point up, but I can assure you that it won't be by much. A tremendous amount of development must occur in a growing fetus to reach the level of complexity attainable at the late-second trimester point. It is my opinion that, no matter what the medical technology, it will be difficult to impossible to determine the actuality of processes at such early levels, and I believe I can rest assured that any activity present would be well below the level attainable by a cow. Nothing against cows, but humans in general (barring religious beliefs) don't have as part of their moral a code a restriction from killing them wholesale and grilling their insides for social gatherings. A bit more can be said of human DNA (I certainly wouldn't grill it), but when the immense social and economic concerns of the mother are brought to fore, the best thing to do is invariably, in my opinon, to go with an abortion.
Some pro-choicers may say that my argument here is too fetus-centered, that I have not taken the immense concerns of the mother, women, and the women's movement into consideration. I contend that I have, just not in this essay. There seem to be quite a few pro-life essays in the lot, and I wished to make a few statements that were subject to less counter-interpretation than many social arguments, though well-intended, can often be subject to. I'm sure someone will attempt to pick apart my argument; if you do so, show some courage and email it to me at youbringmecloser@yahoo.com. I ask a few things, though:
- Think your argument through before replying.
- Do not make accusations. Though people get emotional about this debate, I believe there is never a time when a person should be accused of less-than-honorable behavior.
- Do not assume. I am really sick of people saying "have you ever given to people in Africa? I think not!". If you ever find yourself making an assumption like this, stop yourself and ask: do I really know what I am saying? If you do not, shut up and rethink your argument; if you do, shut up and rethink your argument anyways, because if there's one thing that's true about hypocrites it's this: attacking them makes you feel good, makes them feel mad, and puts the subject matter in question on the back burner. With the subject on the back burner no progress is ever made. I know that Jesus accused hypocracy, but fact is all that does is rile up emotions; only by carely observing, picking apart, and learning from an argument can any exchange prove of value.
Return to the main index