I don’t think this essay adequately deals with the central issue — the individual’s inalienable right to life. At what point during the human’s development does it become an individual and inherit the ownership of its own life?

After this point in development, an abortion is a murder by any moral standard and ought to be considered as such by the law as well. The abortion of a person should be legal only when the pregnancy severly threatens the life of the mother, even in cases of rape, etc.

I’m not qualified to hypothesize whether this moment occurs at conception, in the womb, or even sometime after birth. But before this point, it seems obvious to me that the fetus is only a part of the women’s body. From where does society claim the right to dictate how a woman alters her own body?

Because science can not yet answer the fundamental question here (perhaps it is not a scientific question at all, but only philosophical?), I am satisfied with the middle ground we sit in now. And until we come closer to answering that question, I will advocate very few changes in policy.

(response to spenwah)

I don’t think that this essay offers many groundbreaking theories as such, but rather attempts to remove religion from the equation, at least in regards to public legislation.

Becaue nobody is ultimately qualified to determine that exact point when life becomes not only sentient, but also viable on its own, by agreeing to some scientific principals regarding the individual viability of life, the time frame for allowable abortions could be clearly spelled out.

What this essay attempts to do is both ensure that the protection of public abortion rights is grounded in non-religious thought while improving upon the means for reducing the overall number of abortions through stricter accountability of individuals and their behavior.

The Conservative right would prefer to outlaw all access to abortions based upon religious morals that are not held by everyone. This is the danger. But by removing the debate from the theological realm, we can maintain the rights as they exist now, and strengthen the responsibility of everyone.

As for the sanctity of life concerns, this is the point where individual religious values kick in and help a person determine if abortion is the right course for them to take.

(response to Robert Chandler)

Pity for you that you can’t recognize common sense for what it is…Common Sense resists those who would lord over all by virtue of their own religious values in the effort to strip the freedoms of others. Common Sense asserts the right to insist upon government accountability through greater citizen participation and reduction of wasteful tax and spend policies. Common Sense demands that those who would benefit from the good things that society can offer give back to their society through participation and compassionate assistance.

Perhaps you are too insecure in your own philosophies to counter any disparate versions with actual dialogue. Better to hide your head in the sand than to offer something to the debate. When you become locked in to your own ideas and exclude those that differ from you simply because they differ, you contribute to the current environment of social and political apathy and distrust that allows the politicians to trample the freedoms we believe to be innate to mankind.

(response to Cherone)

First, let me thank you for your excellent comment. When people take the time to read my essay and then post an indepth discussion/comment, it allows me to further think through the issue at hand, but also to clarify some points that otherwise seem to get “glossed over” in an effort not to post a novel.

First- I do not assert that abortion is tantamount to murder, rather that the cause of unwanted pregnancy that leads to abortion is anti-productive to both the woman and to society. My comments regarding the negative effects of abortion:

…unwanted pregnancies are disruptive to the development of young women’s lives and can steer them away from becoming productive contributors to society. Also, the excess of abortions offer too easy a way for men to shed their responsibilities as a potential father, and encourages them towards selfish behavior.

As for the negative effects of pregnancy itself, I grant that it is also a physically traumatic event as well, but alas, is the natural means of propagating the species, whereas abortion in a clinical setting is invasive in a different way. A fine point to be sure, but a difference nonetheless.

With regards to “independant viability” of a fetus being a “cut-off” point for abortion, I guess that I have to concede the point that this is may be a bit arbitrary. But a common morality among humans (regardless of religious doctrine) does provide that killing for killings sake is not a good thing. So the question becomes, is aborting a non self-sustaining embryo killing or is it a medical condition akin to cancer or a tooth cavity? A line does have to be drawn somewhere and the scientific consensus seems like a good place to work from.

The simple reason for reporting abortions in cases of rape, incest, or unlawful sexual relations with a minor is to help authorities track down the perpetrators of these crimes, not to create a forum for shaming the women involved. DNA evidence could be processed that may later help convict these people and prevent them from committing the acts again. I would strongly support maintaining the anonymity of the women in any such case.

The purpose for restricting the number of abortions is solely to to strengthen the educational efforts. Abortion should not be used for birth control when we have so many other options available. In this case, I am not referring to natural remedies or “day after” pills as abortive procedures, though technically they are. I am referring to abortions that occur well into the “viable stage” of development. This inclusion is not to keep women down, as you suggest, but rather to ensure that they receive better information to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place. The last thing we need is for women who don’t want children to be forced into raising them. Again, the rape and incest clause is to address criminal legal issues, not to place moral judgments on the women themselves.

My “breeze” through the religious arguments stems from the fact the I have addressed the need for laws to be based not on religious doctrines, but rather on those human values that transcend religion. You mention murder as an example. True, religion frowns upon murder (at least in word), but so do non-religious people. I would refer you to my post “Morality and the Law” for my views on this topic.

Now, about the statements regarding the men who impregnate women with unwanted fetuses. Why should they be a part of this discussion? Simply put, women do not usually get pregnant by themselves. Therefore, it is just as important to bring in the men on this issue as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Since the state is already involved with regulating abortions, why should the men get off scot-free? Their culpability is as great as that of the woman, and as such, they should be required to undergo the same educational requirements. While the time and the place for this education is before the fact, it seems obvious that those who seek abortions (both the women and the men who help them get pregnant) for non life-threatening reasons didn’t get the message the first time around, and need to be brought up to speed…again. The financial obligation clause refers not only to helping pay for the cost of the procedure itself, but as a punitive measure for those men who are so careless about their sexual activity as to continually get women pregnant via the one night stand, helping to cause the need for abortions. True, women are also responsible for the behavior that results in unwanted pregnancies, but in many sub-cultures of society, women’s wishes and/or proclamations go unheard by the “man in charge.” This provision would help protect those women who have small voices by penalizing such brutish behavior.

Finally, the sterilization considerations DO represent an extreme measure, to be sure. But at some point, the needs of society must outweigh the needs of an irresponsible, thoughtless, callous individual. If you’ve read any of my other posts, you will see that individual freedoms are of tantamount importance to me and my creed of Common Sense. At the same time, behaviors that negatively impact all of society, such as the continued production of unwanted, uncared for, and untaught children should have a limit. An Orwellian measure? Or rather a measure to benefit both society and the future sucess of the children who are born into caring, wanting families.

I won’t profess to have all the answers, but I will continue to be provacative in my ideas. I don’t think that our current abortion legislation is necessarily broken, but it is under attack, and perhaps a few changes will preserve it for all women in perpetuity.

Thanks again for the comments. I relish more like this one.

Michael:

Your exact argument can also be used against contraception, the use of which you support. You go from saying the embryo will be a human being to saying it is. If two people have sex, is it not an alteration of God’s plan to take steps preventing an embryo from forming? Haven’t they just killed a human being?

Ken:

I do not suggest that life is sanctified. But the fact remains that every individual is the sole owner of his body and life. This is not a religious principle, it is a rationalist one derived from the facts of nature and reached through reason and common sense. Except when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life, there is absolutely no scenario in which the abortion of a person should be legal.

On the flip side, it seems to me that the abortion of a fetus before it becomes a person ought be totally legal and unregulated. There are many things that are “bad for us” that I am sure you do not advocate state intervention in. I am proud to be able to eat Hardee’s Monster Burgers and Oreo cookies and occasionally stay up all night reading blogs. These things are bad for me, but making the personal decision of whether or not or how often I will partake in them confirms my status as a sovereign individual; society has no right to dictate how I use my own personal private property, in this case the property being my body. How do abortions differ? Fundamentally, how are they different than ear piercings, tattoos, or liposuction? From where does society assert the right to dictate to a woman how she uses her own body? This essay and your recent one on the drug war seem to contradict each other.

Essentially, there is no gray area in this debate. Either a given fetus is a person and owns its life, or it is only a part of the mother’s body, no more of an individual person than her arm or foot is. If yes, it is murder, in every sense of that word, to abort it. If no, then the question of whether or not to abort the particular pregnancy becomes an amoral one — the fetus has no rights to consider.

Your attempt to remove religion from the debate also removes ethics, the most central and crucial branch of philosophy. Popular opinion ought not have any weight in this discussion.

(response to spenwah)

I think that we are in agreement with the notion that a fetus and a person are not one and the same thing, and that a woman has control over her body and it’s processes when the fetus is not yet a “person.”

The question then centers on what constitutes a person in the developmental stages. When does an empbryo ascend to personhood, thus attaining rights over it’s own sovereignity?

If the standard to attaining personhood is individual sovereignity, then none of us are really “people” in that sense until we have the ability to physically transport ourselves independantly or communicate to others through verbal and/or non-verbal forms. This would move the bar into the early months after delivery.

But as we both know, the status of personhood is defined by many through religious beliefs. My point is that from a legal standpoint, some boundary should be identified with regards to abortion. Why? Because, as you rightly point out, this is more than a legal question…it is an ethical one as well.

But just as religious or political theory changes from time to time and culture to culture, so do ethical considerations. And as such, I would rely on scientific determinations to identify the point at which life becomes separate from its mother and use that as a standard. Because while ethics and religion can change through public opinion, most empirical science stand more rigorously.

My position regarding laws that effect an individual and their person are not changed in spite of the seeming contradictions here. Individuals should be free in their person so long as their actions do not cause harm to society. Just to be clear, I support laws allowing abortion as a legal procedure, but I think that they need to be based on non emotional factors, to establish a firm legal standpoint. Then, those with religious or ethical concerns can simply not have abortions without restricting all others.

Admitedly, because of the overwhelming religious biases that we are all culturally stradled with, this is one of the trickier issues to pin down.

I am glad we found a topic that allows for more analysis from many angles.

I will comment on only one point. Why should the point of viability have any importance in the question of the continued life or death of the fetus. Viability changes as medical advances push to earlier and earlier points of gestation the age at which the fetus is considered viable. Why should a fetus that has not yet reached this artificial age of viability be permissible to kill but after it reaches that age, it is less so? The fetus, prior to viability, is no less alive than after. It is no less a member of the species. It is no less upon a biochemically self-determined course of developement. It makes no more sense to place a moral sanction upon the deliberate killing of a viable fetus than upon the same act upon a fetus two weeks shy of viability. In short, what possible moral difference does it make whether the fetus is capable of life outside of the woumb since there is nothing in the abortion issue about taking the fetus out of the woumb to live…only to die.

From the moment of conception, the single cell’s course of developemental life, barring intervention, is fully set. There is no logical case to be made for attatching moral sanction upon killing 22 week fetus but not one a day shy, or for one a day shy of that etc. all the way back to conception. At least that is my opinion.

(response to Craig)

It is precisely because the moral/ethical implication, or lack thereof depending on your point of view, can probably never be bridged that a more objective stance be taken when creating laws regarding abortion.

Laws must assure that the freedom of the individual, in this case, the sentient, fully formed, already independant individual, are not restricted based on religious preferences of another group of citizens. Your own moral guidelines will ultimately determine your own choices, having the knowledge that you will not be prosecuted either way you choose.

I have to ask you whether or not an embryo being nurtured ex utero through its developmental stages by means of medical machinery is really the standard for viability. But saying that it is, what stage would you argue that life begins?

In your remark to spenwah, you assert that the blastocyst is an independant organism in the woman’s body, using that body as a host for it’s own development. This fits the description of a parasite, if I’m not mistaken. In fact, doesn’t a pregnant womans body often attack these blastocysts that it recognizes as foreign and possibly dangerous? Only when the womans body accepts the newly formed cells does the process of nurture begin. So would that make the use of abortifacients following sexual activity more akin to using penicillan to fight a bacterial infection? If so, I would recommend more education and wide-spread availability of these natural toxins so as to prevent any unwanted pregnancies altogether.

I think that personal morals on this and similar issues should be the guiding force for individual choice, but not the reason for legislating the choices of everyone.

As society, our first obligation is to take care of the needs of those who are already here.

Interesting post you have there. Well written too. However, the point I think you’re missing is that the rights to life of the individual are indeed inalienable as granted to us by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and therefore cannot be taken away.

In America, it is our laws that are interpreted by grown individuals on a jury of the individuals peers, who decide the fate of those who have broken the laws, that were created by society, through elected legislators. So, it is society who put murderers in jail, because they’ve taken a life in an act that society has deemed to be a crime and thus punishable by law.

Yet the issue of when life begins is brought up incessantly in this debate. Why? Because behind all of these arguments (unfortunately on both sides of the fence) is the implicit assumption that it is wrong, if not evil, to make distinctions. The logic is very simple: it is wrong to discriminate or make distinctions. The fetus is a human life, therefore it is wrong to discriminate against it in any shape or form.

The fact that life begins at conception is a non-issue.

Many woman choose to have sex because their judgments are overridden by desire. If they get pregnant they decide on a life that helped create due to their desire and must take responsibility for that life.

So the life of a fetus, (or any life, in my opinion) are endowed with inalienable rights starting from conception, and therefore must be protected by society (not community) as a whole, to prevent self-destruction, or extinction if you will.

Therefore, I think that it is not the “reciprocal” rights that matter here, (because that term is more for people of age, already living) but the inalienable rights of the fetus that is the real issue here, because of the consequential decisions of willingly taking the life of the fetus, making that “choice,” what (again, in my opinion) should be considered a criminal act punishable by law.

I must admit that I’m torn on this issue.
On the one hand I have my faith which considers abortion murder. Yet, I recognize a certain need for a non-religious approach to finding some resolution to the issue.
As far as I’m concerned, this proposal is our best bet. I would of course like to see “Parental Notification” on #5, but that can be discussed more at some other time.
With this particular framework I believe that Christians could find the compromise of saving many lives that might have fallen under the knife (as it were), while allowing for the “hard cases”.
And isn’t this good enough for now?

I take no issue with the people here commenting that the abortion of a life is a murder. But most of them are basing their entire argument on a premise that is, at the very strongest, questionable. More likely, it is totally faulty and without merit. Their premise is that life, complete with those natural rights inherent in every individual, begins at the moment of conception. Ottman asserts that the truth of this premise is a “non-issue.” That is a completely irrational statment to make; indeed it is the issue. That the simple joining of two cells is the fundamental definition of a person is not the result of a reasonable, scientific train of thought. That is the stuff of religion and mysticism.

Ken:
The rising level of obesity in America is harming society. (medical costs, lost productivity, etc.) Do you also advocate state intervention in that area? Your position has always seemed to be that one can only directly harm other individuals; society is only harmed to the extent that it is comprised partly of the individuals who were harmed. If our assumption is that the fetus being considered for abortion is not a person, how would that abortion harm any individual besides the mother (who owns her body and may voluntarily harm it any way she pleases)? I still do not understand your justification for government regulation of abortion, given that we assume the fetus is not a person.

I only mentioned briefly my position on abortion in this discussion, in my first comment. I do not know at what point in the human’s development it becomes a person (I would guess it occurs sometime after birth). For this reason, it is important to err on the side of caution to eliminate the possibility of committing mass murder. Abortion should be limited to the first trimester. Beyond this, I see no compelling arguments for regulation of any other kind. The simple economic facts that using a condom is both much cheaper and much less painful than undergoing an abortion will discourage most women from using abortion as a form of birth control. And because of the strong personal convictions most Americans have regarding abortion, they should never be funded or subsidized by taxpayers.

(general response to several comments)

First, I congratulate everyone for maintaining a mostly civil discussion on a topic that garners strong opinions from every angle.
Thanks for keeping this blog an interesting place.

M+, you’re religious beliefs are important to you, and that is good, for you. And yet you realize that they are your beliefs and may not be others. You truly get the message when it comes to legislating individual morality. You recognize the need for personal choice, while rejecting the choices that don’t work for you. If only more people were like you…

Spenwah- Of course I wouldn’t legislate the dietary habits of Americans, but when I finally come around to talking health care, you can be sure I have some thoughts on that issue too.

Your assessment of the need for legislation on this issue(abortion) does have merit, but only to the point where we make the determination that an embryo is no longer just a fetus, and has indeed moved into the realm of personhood. And, if for no other reason than to seek middle ground over this obviously divisive issue, we must make that determination, as a legal benchmark based on the best scientific evidence available. Though I advocate exactly the kind of freedom you say I do, I also recognize the rare occurrence when an issue is so intertwined with social stability, that the only way to try to get beyond it is to create a standard that all can at least grudgingly accept. This is one of those issues.

Diogenes-Here, here. Nice summation. Windspike was right- I did step in it this time, but as he also says, I knew what I was doing. Reasonable discussions about the issues are welcome though, and for the most part, this has been a reasonable discussion. Thanks for jumping in.

I find it interesting that both Michael and Ottman choose their language unconsciously, or perhaps consciously, in a way that places the bulk of responsiblity on the woman. Yet, they seem to feel that men in society should have an equal or even greater voice in the decisionmaking process that determines abortion policy.

Michael said: “I’m pro-choice to a point. The woman has a choice to not have sex. She has the choice to use protection. If she chooses to not do either of those, or if they fail, she (IMHO) has run out of choices because now another human being is involved.”

Ottman said: “Many woman (sic) choose to have sex because their judgments are overridden by desire. If they get pregnant they decide on a life that helped create due to their desire and must take responsibility for that life.”

To Ottman I want to say that your claim about the “inalienable” rights of a fetus fails to account for the fact that an unborn person cannot be a citizen of the United States. Most people gain their citizenship here by being born on U.S. soil. If your argument is that Constitutional rights extend to absolutely every person under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, then you stand in stark disagreement with the Bush Administration and the Supreme Court. The federal government currently denies due process to foreign “enemy combatants” under the theory that they are not citizens and not on U.S. soil. Yet, the United States government exercises jurisdiction over them. The same goes for certain illegal aliens presently inside the United States. If the right to life, liberty, and property is inalienable, as you say, and applies absolutely across the board, then you need to account for those people too.

Ken, thanks for your response to my comments. I do want to say that I slightly disagree with you about what you say regarding birth control. We agree that education is key, and everyone should know all the options. Assuming that people act rationally (which assumption often proves fallacious), abortion would be a rare way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It is the most difficult, expensive, and psychologically taxing option. However, I do not think that the law should impose that structure on women, simply because I strongly believe that a woman should theoretically have absolute control over her own body.

DiogenesFreed: to me, the question of whether the fetus is a person is to me a moot point. Many feminists, including myself, argue that abortion is killing, but this is a unique case where a woman’s rights trump her unborn child’s. It just has to be that way in order to maintain equity and individual sovereignty. As George Carlin says, if you think that a fetus is more important than a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the shit stains out of your underwear.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

This link is mesmerizing for anyone interested in this issue.

Bernie

(response to anonymous)

Anon-

Thanks for the link. These anecdotes from actual doctors and patients help expose the hypocrisy of some of the foes of abortion and a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body.

Everyone, check out the link in Anonymous’ comment.