On October 26, 2012, a post appeared on a blog titled, "The Dead Author's Club" by "Christine" (her last name does not appear on the post) titled "Fetal personahood and criminalizing abortion: a prosecutor's perspective." The blog had nothing to do with dead authors, and to Christine's credit she explained this from the ourtset. Instead, she wanted to express her thoughts about the efforts to ban (or even criminalize) abortion except in certain special circumstances such as rape and incest. Unfortunately, comments have been closed, so there is no way for me to respond to Christine directly. Even without that opportunity, though, I felt a response of some sort was warranted.
Christine is a prosecutor, and she therefore has an informed
perspective on the practical realities of proving rape or incest. Given her experience, her voice is definitely
a welcome one. I too have been a
practicing lawyer for 14 years (including two years in a Public Defender’s
office), so I would like to begin by praising her on some very accurate and
important insights she brings to the issue.
She points to some very real practical difficulties with carving out
exceptions to abortion.
Are we going to take
the pregnant woman’s word for it that she was raped (somehow I suspect that the
answer to this question will be “no”)? Is there going to be a form that she has
to fill out? Will she be placed under oath? Will there be post-abortion
investigations by the police to ensure that she was truthful when she said that
she was raped? If we aren’t going to just take her word for it, what will be
the mechanism for fact finding we will use?
Christine is absolutely correct that establishing rape or
incest exceptions to abortion would be difficult to put into practice. I can accept this as a sound premise. However, from this premise Christine
concludes that these exceptions should be eliminated and all abortions should
be permitted. In drawing this conclusion
based upon our agreed upon premise, she commits a number of logical errors.
THE REAL ISSUE IN ABORTION
Before launching into a detailed analysis of Christine’s
argument, it is important to outline what the real point in dispute is between
the parties on each side of this issue.
Labels such as “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” may seem innocuous enough,
but in reality even these labels are designed to persuade us to adopt one side
or the other. After all, who wants to be
anti-life? At the same time, we all
value our freedom to choose, so who wants to be anti-choice? Isn’t that bad too? You can see how the label each side attaches
to itself is carefully designed to create a certain emotional reaction in favor
of its position. How do we look past the
labels and logically evaluate the moral question accurately?
Let us use the label “Pro-Choice” as our starting point. Those who adopt this position champion a
women’s “right to choose.” This should
generate an immediate question in the mind of any critical thinker. “Choose what?” Usually the response given to this question
is something to the effect of, “choose what to do with her body.” Again, this is a very general statement that
begs for clarification. “To do what with
her body?” Does a woman (or a man for
that matter) have an absolute right to determine what is done to her body? We require children to receive certain
vaccinations before enrolling in school (school attendance is also mandated, so
these vaccinations are not elective in any true sense of the word). Do “pro-choice” advocates mean to suggest that
we cannot require vaccinations? I would
venture a guess that they do not.
“But” they may add, “if a child is not properly vaccinated
they could spread disease to other children.
Their actions affect other people.
That is why it is acceptable to require vaccinations.” Exactly.
A right to choose is not unlimited, even when it comes to your own
body. There are circumstances when it is
appropriate to limit your right to choose, one of which is when your actions
affect other people.
So again, we get back to the original question, “Choose
what?” What specifically is it
Pro-Choice advocates want the right to choose to do? They want the right to choose to have an
abortion. Let’s not dance around the
issue. This is what they want the
freedom to choose.
So are we faced with a circumstance when free choice is
properly limited? We already discussed
one situation when limitations are appropriate: when your choice adversely
affects other people. Is abortion one of
those circumstances? Maybe, maybe
not. It depends on the answer to another
question: “What is it inside the woman’s womb?”
Is it just a collection of the mother’s cells like any other part of her
body or is it a human life of its own?
If it is part of the woman’s body then abortion does not affect anyone
other than the mother herself and her right to choose should not be
abridged. If it is a human life of its
own, however, then her choices affect someone else, and we have already seen
that this is an appropriate circumstance in which to limit someone’s choices.
So the real issue in abortion is whether that thing inside
the womb is a human life or not. If it
is, then abortion kills an innocent human life.
Certainly this is not something that anyone has the right to choose to
do. If it is not a life, though, then
the woman is entirely correct to tell others to stay out of her private
business. If the thing inside the mother
is not a human life, no justification for abortion is necessary. If it is, no justification is adequate.
This illustrates two things for us. First, the real focus of any inquiry into
abortion must be whether the thing inside the womb is a human life. The entire question of the morality of abortion
hinges on how we answer that question.
Second, the reason “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” labels can both sound
appealing is because they both implicitly assume opposite answers to this
question.
INVALIDITY OF CHRISTINE’S ARGUMENT
Now that we have properly framed the question, it will be
easier to respond to Christine’s main argument.
Let us begin by clarifying the difference between a “valid” argument and
a “sound” one. A valid argument is one
in which the premises, if true, correctly lead to the conclusion. A sound argument is one which is not only
valid, but which also has true premises.
Christine’s argument fails even the initial test of validity.
In its simplest form, Christine’s premises could be
summarized as follows:
Premise 1: If a policy would create insurmountable
difficulties in applying exceptions, then it should not be implemented. (If A,
then B)
Premise 2: A policy outlawing abortions except in cases of
rape and incest would create insurmountable difficulties in applying
exceptions. (A)
Therefore: ?
What is the proper conclusion from these premises? Logically, if true, then a policy outlawing
abortions except in cases of rape and incest should not be implemented
(B). But notice that this does not tell
us what policy we SHOULD institute.
There are two logical possibilities, both of which are completely consistent
with this conclusion:
(1) A policy allowing all abortions without exception; or
(2) A policy banning all abortions without exception.
Both of these options avoid the logistical problems of
implementing exceptions because neither of them allow for exceptions. Christine’s logic, however, is as follows:
Premise 1: If a policy would create insurmountable
difficulties in applying exceptions, then it should not be implemented. (If A,
then B)
Premise 2: A policy outlawing abortions except in cases of
rape and incest would create insurmountable difficulties in applying
exceptions. (A)
Therefore: We should
institute a policy allowing all abortions without exception. (C)
This conclusion does not follow from these premises. Her argument form is invalid.
CIRCULAR REASONING
Another logical error Christine makes is one that is all too
common in abortion discussions: circular reasoning. This error occurs when your argument
implicitly or explicitly assumes the conclusion you are seeking to prove. Take a look at the following comment in Christine’s
post:
In addition, however,
to the extraordinary presumption and paternalism inherent in the position that
you – whoever you are – should have more control than the pregnant woman over
her reproductive future, is the absolutely, unequivocally impossible
enforcement situation that this policy would create.
Notice what is going on here. Christine assumes that the issue in the
abortion debate is people believing they “should have more control than the
pregnant woman over her reproductive future.”
But is that really what the debate is about? What is missing from her comment? She makes no mention whatsoever of the object
being aborted. How can any justification
for abortion be sufficient if it completely ignores the thing being aborted?
Elsewhere she refers to it as a “cluster of cells.” But that is the ultimate issue, isn’t
it? What is this object inside the
womb? Is it only a “cluster of cells” or
is it a human being?
She objects that “personhood for a cluster of cells means
that abortion could equal aggravated murder,” as if this is some obvious
problem. But the only reason she finds
this objectionable is because she has already decided that the object is only a
“cluster of cells.” Of course it is
ridiculous to call the removal of a cluster of cells “aggravated murder.” But is it so obvious that intentionally
killing an innocent human being, no matter how small, should be murder? Her outrage on this issue is borne by her
preconceived conclusion, but all the while she fails to realize that she is
avoiding the real question she must answer.
Is the object inside the womb a human being?
So in the end this is a classic example of circular
reasoning. Christine’s outrage against
abortion rights activists is only justified if the thing being aborted has no
rights of its own worthy of consideration; i.e., if it is only a cluster of
cells. But every argument she presents
starts out by assuming this very thing she needs to prove. It is another example of an abortion rights
advocate avoiding the real issue.
PERSONHOOD VERSUS HUMANITY
Christine’s circular reasoning ties into another problem,
her repeated use of the term “personhood.”
Pro-life advocates who fall into the trap of using this term are only
helping their opponents evade the real issue.
What is a “person” and how is it different from a “human
being?” Use of these two different term
amounts to a verbal sleight of hand, attempting to draw an imaginary “line in
the sand” such that some human beings have rights (i.e., “persons”) whereas
others do not. Do you enjoy a right to
life because you are a human being? Not
necessarily. According to those who use
the word “person,” only “persons” enjoy such rights. You can be “human” but not a “person,” and
therefore have no rights that can be infringed upon.
This argument amounts to humanity “plus.” You must be human “plus” have some other
criterion in order to be a “person.”
What that criterion is varies depending on whom you speak to. Some say it is viability. Some require physical birth. Others evaluate your level of consciousness. All of these criteria fail because
inevitably, if followed through to their logical conclusion, they lead to
denying rights to someone even the advocate does not think deserves to
die. To Christie’s credit, she
recognizes, “If it is a person, then it absolutely must enjoy the same
rights and protections of every other person.”
However, using the term “person” to define the issue is another tool to
avoid facing the real issue.
It is actually quite simple to prove
that the item inside a mother’s womb is its own human being from the moment of
conception, separate and apart from the mother.
It is not simply some “cluster of cells” belonging solely to the mother like
her appendix or kidney.
Imagine a defendant in a murder
trial. Certain hairs were found at the
scene of the murder. The prosecution
claims they belong to the defendant. The
accused, however, points out that the victim had a large dog that was prone to
shedding and claims that the hairs were from the victim’s dog. Why do you never see this kind of defense
raised today? Frankly, it is an
extremely simple dispute to resolve. DNA
testing on the hairs would show us whether they belong to a dog or a human
being. Human DNA does not look like
canine DNA. Furthermore, DNA tells us
which specific human being those hairs came from. Each human’s DNA is
different.
If we were to take a DNA sample from a
pregnant woman’s kidney, the DNA signature would not only tell us that the sample
came from a human being, it would also tell us that it came from that
particular woman. What would happen if
we took a DNA sample from that “cluster of cells” that Christine so eagerly
believes is synonymous with any other part of the woman’s body? It should come as no surprise that this DNA
sample would tell us the cells are human.
But more importantly, that sample would tell us that it came from a
different human being than the mother.
Unlike the sample from the kidney, the sample taken from this “cluster
of cells” would bear a different DNA signature than the woman. It is not simply her body at issue. Someone else’s body is being implicated in
this whole transaction as well.
So if we use the term “human,” it becomes
much more difficult for abortion advocates to make their case. Only by arguing that rights are tied to some
separate category called “personhood” can they avoid this implication. But there is a reason we call them “human
rights,” not “person rights.”
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person instead of
the argument. Suppose I disagreed with
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.
You listened to all of Einstein’s well-reasoned arguments then turned to
me for my response. I only say one
thing, “Einstein is a jerk.” Have I
responded to Einstein argument at all? I
have not said anything to rebut either the validity or the soundness of his
presentation, so I have not added anything to your understanding of the debate.
That is the essence of an ad hominem attack. Even though it is a logical fallacy, it is
unfortunately a very effective device to persuade people to take your
side. It is what I call the “schoolyard
bully” approach to argumentation. It is
truly shocking how many people, when they see a bully picking on an innocent
child, will stand behind and try to befriend the bully. This is not because they think the bully is
correct. They just do not want to be the
next victim.
Ridicule is a very effective tactic. At the atheist’s “Reason Rally” earlier this
year in Washington, DC, Richard Dawkins encouraged his listeners to “ridicule
and show contempt" for the doctrines and sacraments of the
religiously-minded. Did he address the
merits of these doctrines? No, but his
speech was effective in rallying people to his cause nonetheless. As responsible thinkers, though, it is our
responsibility to see through such vacuous attempts to curry our favor and
instead evaluate all claims on their merits.
Christine is not immune from this
logical fallacy, and in fact employs it numerous times throughout her
post. Forgive the explicit nature of
some of this language, but these are direct quotes from Christine:
“…you should shut your effing pie hole
about it.”
“And all of this chatter and talk is
offensive, it is demeaning, it is patronizing, and it is unconscionable.”
“Stop
with the pandering bullshit…”
Labeling your opponent as “offensive” and “patronizing” can
be very effective. After all, nobody
wants to be patronizing, so why would we want to be associated with those who
are? The problem is, of course, is that
the fact you are offended by something does not make it wrong. Perhaps the reason you are offended is
because you are wrong and passionately refuse to face the illogic of your own
position. That is why ad hominems should
be avoided at all costs.
CAN MEN HOLD AN OPINION ON ABORTION?
Christina also repeated an oft-used argument, namely that
abortion only concerns women so men have no business expressing an opinion on
it.
“…the group of mostly men propounding
this policy seem to have absolutely no FREAKING idea what they are actually
trying to do here.”
Again, notice how this is a red herring that completely
misses the main issue. It is just
another form of the ad hominem attack.
Instead of saying, “you are a jerk therefore you are wrong” we are
saying “you are a man therefore you are wrong.”
What does the gender of a speaker have to do with the merits of an
argument? If a male and a female both
utter the exact same words concerning abortion, are the words somehow more
“true” when spoken by the female than when they are spoken by the male? Remember that the key fact the abortion
proponent must prove is that whatever is inside the womb is not human. With this in mind, look at the logical
structure of this argument to see if it is valid:
Premise 1: You are
male.
Premise 2: You
believe abortion is wrong.
Therefore: The
object inside the womb is not human.
The argument does not even make sense. Then again, proponents who say things like
this rarely evaluate the logic of their own statements. They just put the thought “out there,” as if
they have made their entire case by simply pointing out that their opponent has
a Y chromosome. In reality they have not
said anything of value and are simply resorting to a more subtle form of name-calling.
In a variation on the same theme,
Christine pulled out the old argument that unless you have experienced
something, you cannot have an opinion on it worthy of consideration. Typically this is also used to disqualify men
from expressing an opinion on abortion.
Christine, however, in an interesting twist, uses it in connection to
rape.
“…unless you’ve been raped, you cannot
understand what it is like to be raped, and you should shut your effing pie
hole about it..”
Christine starts out with a statement I
don’t think anybody will disagree with; i.e., if you have never experienced
rape, you cannot truly appreciate the horrific trauma it involves. In as far as this statement goes, Christine
is obviously correct.
But then look at the conclusion she
draws from that fact. Cleaning up the
language, Christine is arguing that unless you have been raped, you should not
express an opinion about it. When I come
across statements like this I have to wonder if the proponents have made any
effort to think through what they are saying.
For instance, does Christine understand that the standard she is setting
up would equally disqualify people from expressing opinions either for or
against rape (or abortions in instances of rape)? If someone has never been raped, by
Christine’s standard they have no basis to say that it is either a bad or a
good thing! IN fact, if Christine has
not personally been raped (and I would not expect her to share if she had
been), her standard would be self-defeating because she would be disqualifying
her own opinion! That clearly can’t be
true.
Do we really need to experience the
same feelings as someone in order to say whether their actions are right or
wrong? Do I need to have pedophiliac
dispositions in order to say that acting out pedophiliac fantasies on some
unsuspecting child is wrong? I may have
never been a pedophiliac, but I have been a child and I know as a child I would
not have liked being sexually abused.
That is all I need to know in order to conclude that no amount of
pedophiliac dispositions will justify abuse of an innocent child.
Similarly, I do not need to be a woman
to know that it is wrong to murder an innocent child. I can sympathize greatly with the victim of
rape, but I do not need to have been raped in order to know that murdering an
innocent child is wrong. People may
object that this seems insensitive to the rape victim, but even that reaction
is committing circular reasoning. Why is
there no cry about being sensitive to the innocent child? The only answer is because the person
expressing outrage over the alleged insensitivity does not believe there is a
child, but that again is assuming the answer to the ultimate question.
ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION
After all these reflections on Christina’s arguments we are
in a good position to finally take a look at the formal argument against
abortion:
Premise 1: The intentional killing of an innocent human life
without adequate justification is wrong.
Premise 2: Abortion kills an innocent human life without
adequate justification.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Unlike Christina’s argument, this one is clearly valid
(i.e., its conclusion is properly derived from its premises). In order to challenge it as unsound, you must
attack the truth of one or the other of the premises.
Few people would try to argue against premise 1. In fact, people who believe it is moral to
kill innocent humans without justification are typically called psychopaths or
sociopaths. The challenge will have to be
raised against premise 2.
The problem, as we have already seen, is that the object
inside the womb carries its own unique human DNA signature. In any other circumstance this signature would
be sufficient to identify something as a human life. If we are to attempt to argue for a different
outcome here, it begs the question of whether we are speaking logically or
emotionally.
If it is a human life, then no justification will be
sufficient for exterminating it unless that justification would also be
sufficient for killing any other human life, such as a two year old child or a
grown adult. Can someone kill an
innocent human being because the other person’s existence is uncomfortable or
inconvenient? Can a mother kill her
two-year old child because she does not want to be burdened with the
responsibility of raising him or her?
Can we kill a Downs Syndrome child because in our assessment that
child’s life is not worth living, or because we believe that child will be an
economic burden on society? Anyone who
commits murder under any of these circumstances would be judged to be pure evil
by the vast majority of society. So if
the womb contains a living child, none of the customary justifications used for
abortion will suffice.
EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST?
This brings us full circle back to the issue that motivated
Christine’s post. Even if abortion in
general is immoral (as I believe is clearly demonstrated), should exceptions be
made when the conception was via rape or incest? For different reasons, the answer to this
question is both extremely difficult and also quite simple. It is difficult because we are clearly
dealing with some of the most evil violations that can be committed against a
person. Any discussion of this question
that does not begin by acknowledging the horrid nature of the act that was
committed against the woman is unfeeling.
But it is also simple in the sense that we have already established the
methodology needed to answer the question, and by applying that methodology the
answer comes through loud and clear.
Rape is evil. Incest
is evil. But when discussing these evils
we cannot lose sight that infanticide is also atrociously evil. If abortion kills a child, as I believe we
have already shown, then it too is equally evil. So as hard as it is for us to face the evils
committed against the pregnant woman, we must realize that we are evaluating
evils on both sides of the equation and ask ourselves whether the evil against
the mother justifies committing another evil against the child.
The test we used previously when evaluating abortion was,
“If it is a human life, then no justification will be sufficient for
exterminating it unless that justification would also be sufficient for killing
any other human life.” So let us apply
that same test to rape and abortion.
Assume you are confronted with a two-year old boy who was conceived by
rape or incest. Does the manner of the
child’s conception give the mother the right to kill him? If the answer is “no,” and if (as we have
seen) there is no moral difference between the born versus the unborn child,
then the answer should be the same for both.
The past evil action committed against the mother cannot justify
committing a new evil act against an innocent baby. Given the logical conclusions we have come
to, we can sympathize with the horrible evil the woman has suffered, but our
responsibility to that child is also clear.
CONCLUSION
Few issues seem to arouse as many hot emotions as does
abortion. The emotional component of
Christina’s post came through clearly.
The challenge with issues such as these is to avoid forming our opinions
based upon our emotions and try our best to use calm and rational
reflection. When we apply solid logical
principles and avoid common fallacies, none of the justifications for abortion
withstand scrutiny. While Christina
began her post with some insightful observations about the impracticality of
carving out rape and incest exceptions, she allowed her apparent emotional
feelings in favor of abortion to blind her to the trail down which a reflective
and rational evaluation should have led her.
No comments:
Post a Comment