a few circumstances (part 1)

Some of you know that I've started posting polls about abortion opinion on the side-bar of my blog. Mostly, they're "just for fun." I don't take the results with much more than a grain of salt due to the facts that 1) my readers may or may not be an accurate representation of the general public (more likely the latter), and 2) nothing prevents someone from dishonestly voting more than once. However, my most recent poll, in which I ask when, if ever, one believes abortion should be legal, is getting some interesting results so far.

Based on previously-conducted surveys by others and past conversations of my own, I suspected when I wrote this poll that the third option, "A few circumstances," would be a very popular- if not the most popular- answer. And, indeed, it has already acquired quite a few clicks.

A few examples of "tough cases" that I included in this poll option were the situations of rape and when the mother's health is at risk due to the pregnancy. It is not uncommon for someone to consider himself to be pro-life except in such instances. Hence, the popularity of option three- i.e. the popularity of the contention that abortion is occasionally okay.

All of this is good news and bad news.

It's good news because this means many people oppose 96% of the abortions happening every day in the U.S. (Sources give slightly varying percentages, but overall, 1% of abortions are attributed to rape and 3% are due to potential health risks of the mother). The people maintaining this view do recognize that something about abortion is not right, to the extent that they oppose its use in almost every instance.

It's bad news because this suggests that the Pro-Life Movement needs to do far more teaching about the morality involved in these tough cases. We have yet to fully succeed in helping people see that, though difficult life situations exist, all human lives are still equal.

I have previously written about abortion in the case of rape in my post entitled, "What About Rape?", which focused on the story of Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape and lived to tell her story. But, here, I will discuss the morality of such a situation in more general, less personal, terms.

To determine whether or not it is morally permissible to abort a child conceived in rape, it may be useful to begin by asking ourselves what makes us, perhaps, more inclined to say that an abortion is justified in the case of rape than in another. I think this inclination is rooted in an (accurate) understanding of the moral atrocity that is sexual abuse. We feel compassion for the woman who is a rape victim, and rightfully so: she, an innocent human being, has been violated*. But from here, we often jump to the (inaccurate) conclusion that, because of this, her unborn child, also an innocent human being, can be killed.

We probably do not think of it in this way. We focus, instead, on our feeling that, in order to express our sympathy for this woman, we must allow or even help her to get an abortion- to eliminate the child that resulted from that crime. But, nonetheless, the "abortion-is okay-every-once-in-awhile" conclusion, while generally well-intentioned, is flawed in at least four ways, several of which Francis J. Beckwith points out in his book Defending Life (see footnotes):

First, it begs the question of what the unborn are by assuming they are not fully human. For if they are fully human, then we have to weigh the (assumed) relieving of a woman's mental and emotional distress against the right to life of an innocent human being. And we know that homicide of another is never justified as a way to make someone feel better**[1].

Second, this conclusion misidentifies the aggressor. The rapist is the aggressor, not the unborn child. The unborn is just as much of an innocent victim as his mother. No child should be punished for his dad's crime. As ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman notes, "A child does not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a sexual criminal or a deviant"[1].

Third, this conclusion is inconsistent with what we normally conclude to be true regarding ethical actions between a mother and child (or any two people, for that matter). In no other situation would we say that a mother can rightfully kill her son because he is causing her emotional distress. For instance: Imagine that a woman was raped 9 months ago, decided against abortion, and had her baby boy (let's say she named him Andy) today. Now imagine that 5 years from now, on Andy's first day of kindergarten, she meets another parent who looks frighteningly similar to the man who raped her. She begins having terrible flashbacks of the event, and when she looks at Andy's face after school, all she can think of is the face of the man who sexually abused her years ago. Understandably, she is emotionally shaken and terribly distraught. Given this, is she justified in killing her son to make herself feel better? Of course not. So what makes us think it would have been okay to kill him 5 years earlier? Again, if the unborn is fully human, there is no morally relevant difference between killing Andy as a fetus and killing Andy as a kindergartner.

And finally, this conclusion fails to recognize the identical humanness of a child who is going to be aborted because of rape and a child who is going to be aborted because of any other reason that a person might reject as being illegitimate. In other words, we must remember that the fetus who the career-oriented woman will abort in hopes to get a job promotion is biologically and morally identical to the fetus who a rape victim will abort in hopes to alleviate her emotional pain. If a person realizes that abortion for career advancement is morally deplorable, then he must realize that abortion for emotional reasons is morally deplorable, too: in both cases, an innocent human being is killed[1].

The "pro-life with exceptions" philosophy always contradicts itself. It is as illogical as saying, "Every man has a right to freedom, but it's okay for certain men to be sold as slaves." At the end of the day, it does not make sense; and more importantly, it is morally dire.

In my next post, I will attempt to elucidate the morality of a situation in which a mother's health is at risk. But for those who are inclined to think that I will place the life of the unborn child above the life of her mother, I will assure you now that that is not the case. I would not be pro-life if I did not defend the lives of women, too. Indeed, what is beautiful about the pro-life position is that one does not have to pit one life against another.

In the meantime, I would encourage my almost-pro-life friends to take that final leap: to be not afraid to declare life for all! For it is only through protecting the lives of everyone that we protect the lives of anyone. "Every human has rights"***.

Vita Pro Omni!

* The pro-lifer believes the utmost care and assistance should be given to a rape victim in all areas of her life, and that we should especially "make it as easy as possible for her to give up her baby for adoption, if she desires. Dealing with the woman pregnant from rape, then, can be an opportunity for us—both as individuals and society—to develop true understanding and charity. Is it not better to try to develop these virtues than to countenance an ethic of destruction as the solution?" (Dr. Stephen Krason).

** To state this is not to dismiss the very real and understandable anguish that a rape victim experiences, but rather to view the situation from an ethical perspective. We can know what is right, even if our emotions are conflicted.

*** A message which National Geographic continues to promote

[1] Francis J. Beckwith makes this point in his book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice