| | Tim
I have three responses: first an epistemological argument; next a social argument; and finally a point about knowledge and decisions.
First the epistemological argument
You asked: Why do we need to draw a line arbitrarily for the purpose of defining which stage of human development is worthy of being assigned rights?
Because it is in the nature of all man-made law to draw categorical distinctions along a continuum. Look at property rights. This piece of land that starts here and ends there belongs to me. So we put a fence between my plot and your plot which are both part of a continuous stretch of land. Look at scientific categories. We call electromagnetic waves that fall into a certain band gamma rays. The next band we call X-rays. Then there’s ultra-violet light. Then the visible spectrum, which we chop up further into different colours (depending on our culture and language). And so on through infrared, micro and radio waves, point being that despite the electromagnetic spectrum being in reality continuous, we use epistemology to split it up into categories that offer user-benefits.
These distinctions are not arbitrary; they are based on the facts appropriate to each context.
Similarly, the line we draw along the developmental cycle of a fetus is not arbitrary, but based on the facts appropriate to the context. The context here is sociopolitical because we are dealing with the concept of rights. Specifically, it is the sociopolitical context that an individual person needs in order to survive and flourish. That context is not applicable to a clump of cells that are genetically human but not yet an individual person. But that context is applicable to a newborn and to a viable fetus. And that is why we have to make a categorical distinction even though we recognise that the development cycle is continuous.
Second the social argument
The facts of life call upon individual persons to make difficult choices in a myriad of contexts with life-or-death, emotional, financial and legal implications -- often unforeseeable by lawmakers.
You and I can discuss particular abortion cases endlessly. What about pregnancy from father-daughter incest? What about pregnancy from violent rape? What about pregnancy from statutory rape? What about accidental pregnancy (failure of both the male and female contraception in use)? What about pregnancy after a psychological trauma resulting in mental incapacitation in which the female was not fully responsible for her choices? What about pregnancy in which the female was inebriated at the time of conception? Do you see yet another continuum forming from cases where you or I might be willing to concede that early abortion is acceptable, to cases where you or I are no longer willing to make that concession?
My point is that it costs us virtually nothing to debate these issues and to discuss what is behaviourally determinative or philosophically crucial. But real people -- hopefully never ourselves -- have to face and make these difficult choices. They have to bear the costs -- not us. By drawing the line at conception we are setting a categorical restriction in place that leads to human suffering and injustice that can be avoided by drawing the line later. A sociopolitical context that forbids abortion outright (or only under strictly prescribed circumstances) leads to more suffering than one which opens up a window period in which abortion is permissible.
You can call this expedient if you like. But that is the nature of law and government. Why is government necessary at all? Because it’s expedient, advantageous, suitable -- which is an informal way of saying that it is an objective necessity. In the absence of all government, human suffering tends to increase. Similarly, in the absence of the right to abortion, human suffering tends to increase.
Last, a point about knowledge and decisions
I’m currently reading Thomas Sowell’s book on Knowledge and Decisions. Sowell does not deal at all with the issue of abortion, but his analysis of knowledge and decisions is without doubt applicable.
I cannot hope to summarise here in one paragraph a thesis that he develops in 382 pages, but I can hope to offer you another avenue for research. (Besides, the book is fascinating.)
One of the points that Sowell makes is that informal, social decision-making processes are often superior to formal, institutional decision-making processes because of the locus and costs of knowledge and decision-making. This applies to abortion cases, where a family is often in a better position to assess an unwanted pregnancy than a judge who cannot hope to have access to all the knowledge -- factual, psychological, emotional, financial, relational, etc. -- available to the family. In cases of unwanted pregnancy a family is in a better position to decide whether to abort or to proceed with the pregnancy than is the state.
To respond by saying that there should be no abortion at all is to miss the point that abortion will happen regardless of any law against it. (Just as prostitution and trade in drugs cannot be brought to an end by even the most forceful police and judicial interventions.) To say that abortion is always wrong regardless of the context, and should therefore be outlawed runs the danger of thinking that law must reflect our highest personal moral ideals absolutely (when in fact law reflects our social moral ideals as well as our sociopolitical knowledge of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of law). Outlawing drugs and prostitution and prosecuting offenders is ineffective and causes more social problems than it solves. Legalising drugs, prostitution and abortion may offend our personal moral standards but there are objective and compelling social reasons for doing so.
While I recognise, respect and share your value for the sanctity of human life, and regard for logic and objectivity, I also recognise a danger in isolating the abortion debate around the issue of human genetic identity and excluding any other consideration.
I think the difference between our positions is that we apply our shared values (sanctity of human life, logic, objectivity) to different contexts of knowledge. You bring a wider context of scientific knowledge that I cannot hope to match. I may bring a wider context of epistemological and sociopolitical issues.
As I said, I doubt we will be able to agree. But I value the challenge of understanding and appreciating your point of view, and the opportunity to clarify my own thinking.
|
|
