Have you ever had an argument or discussion with someone, maybe even a loved one, and after a while realized that the two of you weren’t even arguing about the same thing? A lack of communication or a poor choice of words clouded the issue? A recent discussion on another site highlighted the fact the the sometimes emotional debate we see in this country on abortion is completely missing the point.
The two sides on this issue describe themselves as pro-life and pro-choice. On the surface, this is already a problem because in any true debate the two sides should, at a minimum, be opposed to each other’s views. In the labels used for the two sides in this argument both sides are “pro”-something different.
The real debate we need to have is ‘What is Life’? What do we consider human life and when does it begin? This debate also has implications for the other question of when does life end?
The argument about when life begins covers a range of opinions. On one side of the debate, life begins at conception. On the other end of the debate, life begins at birth. So there are about 9 months in between in which the two sides of this debate are not arguing the same point. If you believe that life begins at conception, then the idea that an abortion is a ‘choice’ someone can make is a scary thought. We can not choose to end the life of a friend or neighbor so why can we choose to end the life of a baby in the womb under anything but extreme circumstances? If you believe that life does not start until birth then the thought of someone against abortion being pro-life is also absurd because, in your opinion, there is no life to be for in the first place.
When we as a society can come to grips with that is life and when life begins, then the abortion debate can not carry the same labels it does now. But where do we stand as a society?
At a minimum, it appears that most do not believe that life only begins at birth. In California, the jury in the Scott Peterson case convicted Peterson in the death of his unborn child. California is hardly a conservative bastion, yet they indicated by their conviction that they believed Peterson took the life of an unborn child when he killed his wife, Laci. Most states restrict late-term abortion after the fetus is considered viable. The definition of viable is left open to interpretation.
However, an understanding of the term viable and a broader understanding of what we consider life is all-important to this debate. Once you establish that line, it is no longer a question of choice, it is a question of life. Prior to that line it is not a question of life, because no life is established.
The discussion on what we consider human life also has much broader implications. If we only use the term viable to describe life, then should we keep people on life support systems in the event of injury or illness? If their life is no longer ‘viable’ without outside support, are they still alive? Does someone else get a ‘choice’ on what to do with the life support decision?
Regardless of which side of this debate you are currently on, the larger issue of how and when we consider ‘life’ is one of the most important discussions we can have in this country that has implications beyond abortion. Only when we look past the currently false argument of pro-choice vs. pro-life can we have meaningful progress on this issue.
"In the labels used for the two sides in this argument both sides are “pro”-something different."
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear why this is a problem. "Team Jacob" and "Team Edward" start with the same word, yet are clearly opposing. Sorry if you find that example silly, but it seems fitting. Further, labels don't really need to be taken seriously. They're chosen for persuasiveness, not necessarily accuracy.
"On one side of the debate, life begins at conception. On the other end of the debate, life begins at birth. So there are about 9 months in between in which the two sides of this debate are not arguing the same point."
Not really. The question is when the fetus gets protection. We can't really determine when "life" begins because it's not a universal term. Scientifically, life begins at birth simply because of the processes involved. That's not "life" as we think of it, though, since we don't view things through a microscope. The pro-choice side, as far as I've seen, doesn't say "life begins at birth" as much as dismissing the question and arguing for a compromise where a woman can have an abortion up until a certain stage of pregnancy. You acknowledge this later, so I find it strange that "life begins at birth" is presented as a contrast to the "side" of "life begins at conception".
Also, I don't think I've met anyone who didn't understand the pro-life position. It's simply described as a religious one, which has no place in public policy.
"In California, the jury in the Scott Peterson case convicted Peterson in the death of his unborn child."
The issue there is that the child was wanted, so they counted it as a life. Consider this:if she had simply gotten an abortion, would they try her for murder? Obviously not. So, they're not declaring that any fetus counts as a human being. The mother's will determines whether it bears protection or not. How about if someone was on her way to get a legal abortion when she was killed? It would clearly be idiotic to charge someone with two murders for that.
"If we only use the term viable to describe life, then should we keep people on life support systems in the event of injury or illness? If their life is no longer ‘viable’ without outside support, are they still alive? Does someone else get a ‘choice’ on what to do with the life support decision?"
It depends on the will of the person and their loved ones. Here's the key to it all;once a woman reaches a certain stage of pregnancy, she has established that she is acting in good faith to bring a person into society. Therefore, at that stage and ever after, that entity is protected. Legal abortion doesn't logically lead to pulling people off of life support or anything like that. There simply has to be a cutoff point for abortion, and viability is where it was made. I, personally, think it could be done at the three-month stage, but in any event there has to be a determination.
I would argue that not only is the dissection of "life" not needed, it's counter-productive. There are no objective agreements on it, and it leads you to question things like the value of life for legal citizens, something that otherwise is not controversial in the least.
Brabantio, thanks for your comments. I will try to address them one by one.
ReplyDelete1. I agree that just because the words are different in two sides of an argument does not necessarily make the argument disjointed, but in this case I think you can see how the words used to describe either the pro-life or pro-choice side of the debate do miss the point because they are arguing two different things. In your example of the two teams, assuming they are in the same sport then they by definition have to be opposed. But talking pro-life nad pro-choice is kind of like trying to argue about the Yankees and the Steelers. You will never come to any type of agreement because they are really two different arguments. My point is that if you believe you are dealing with a human life, you really can't honestly be pro-choice any more. If you are not dealing with a human life, then you really can't be pro-life.
2. The idea that life begins at conception vs. birth were meant to frame the two extreme ends of the argument. I don't think any people argue that human life begins before conception and I haven't seen anyone argue that it occurs some time after birth. So those two views represent bookends. People can believe that human life begins at either of the two bookends or somewhere in between, as in the example you mentioned of the three month mark.
3. Your counterpoint on the Peterson issue causes me some concern from a logical viewpoint because it seems to try and have it both ways. The fact that he was charged with the murder of an unborn baby clearly indicates that society viewed that baby as a human life. If that is the case, then how could an abortion of that human life be legal? The only other time I see that same dichotomy is when a criminal has been tried and convicted and receives the death penalty. In that case, society makes a choice to take a recognized human life. If at any point in the 9 months, the fetus becomes a human life I am not sure how you can assert that the 'mother will determine whether it bears protection or not'. A mother can't kill her two year old human life, why can she kill her unborn human life, if society has determined that it became a human life some time between conception and birth, which clearly in the Peterson case it had.
4. I am not sure I agree that the end of life issues are not controversial. The Terry Schiavo case and the trial of Dr. Kevorkian were very controversial. The death penalty remains controversial. Now the idea of extrajudicial killings with drones is controversial. I think as a society we are still struggling with life and death concerns.
I certainly don't pretend to have the answers on this one. I just still see a logical disconnect between the two sides on this argument and to me it all comes back to when and how we define human life. Once we cross that line I don't see how we can still refer to the 'choice' to end that life. Before that line, I also don't see how you can be pro-life if no human life has been established. I would definitely welcome additional comments on this.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
ReplyDelete"You will never come to any type of agreement because they are really two different arguments."
Sure, if one believes that life begins at conception, there's really no room for compromise. I just didn't understand how the labeling asserted "this is already a problem because in any true debate the two sides should, at a minimum, be opposed to each other’s views." It seems there's opposition if their views are mutually exclusive of each other, by definition. Maybe I'm just not reading your concern correctly.
"The idea that life begins at conception vs. birth were meant to frame the two extreme ends of the argument."
I do understand that, but I think it (unintentionally) frames the issue incorrectly, since there are certainly far many more people who believe life begins at conception than those who believe it begins at birth (or base their views off of that, anyway).
"The fact that he was charged with the murder of an unborn baby clearly indicates that society viewed that baby as a human life. If that is the case, then how could an abortion of that human life be legal?"
That's my problem with the Peterson decision, is that's how some people interpret it. I think it depends on the intent of the mother, so in actuality it would not inconsistent with pro-choice views. Like I said, do you think they would reach the same verdict if a woman was on her way to get a legal abortion at the time of the murder? I don't think it can legally trump Roe v. Wade in any event, so it shouldn't be interpreted as an effort to speak to that.
(continued)
"If at any point in the 9 months, the fetus becomes a human life I am not sure how you can assert that the 'mother will determine whether it bears protection or not'."
DeleteSimply by maintaining the pregnancy up until the cutoff point. Once that happens, the will of the mother is clearly that the pregnancy will be taken to term.
"A mother can't kill her two year old human life, why can she kill her unborn human life, if society has determined that it became a human life some time between conception and birth, which clearly in the Peterson case it had."
"Some time" doesn't mean at any random time, though. That's why we have a cutoff point, so that abortion is allowed before that, and not after.
"I am not sure I agree that the end of life issues are not controversial. The Terry Schiavo case and the trial of Dr. Kevorkian were very controversial."
Sure, but not because there's any question about the value of life independent of the will of individuals and their families. It's not as if anyone said Terri Schiavo wasn't viable and therefore ending her life had to be mandated by the courts regardless of her husband's views. That's my point, that just because we determine viability for a fetus doesn't carry over to people not getting a choice regarding end-of-life issues (I actually think there would be First Amendment lawsuits if the government tried to take that choice away).
"Once we cross that line I don't see how we can still refer to the 'choice' to end that life. Before that line, I also don't see how you can be pro-life if no human life has been established."
What strikes me is that, first, the religious argument isn't going to budge. It's religious. So there's always going to be some level of discontent with anything that isn't "at conception". Also, if you solidify some definition of "life", then you're pretty much telling someone that they're wrong. I'd rather not open that can of worms, personally. It's always going to be controversial, I expect, and the best solution I can think of is to make the best compromise possible and politely say that the religious argument against all abortion can't be applied to society at large. Determining "life" would instead either make all abortion illegal or assert that the religious argument is false, which is not the place of the government. It may help reconcile the labels, but the ramifications don't seem particularly pleasant from my viewpoint.
I agree that any decision on when life begins is not going to be pleasant but is it the right thing to do? Several states are starting to struggle with the definitions now. Some have decided on 24 weeks and viability as a definition, others have moved to 20 weeks and the Arkansas bill uses 12 weeks and the ability to feel pain as a threshold.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with different cutoff points, as long as they're reasoned. 12 weeks (almost) fits what I think is a fair compromise. I also don't think that bears directly on the question of when life begins, or at least it shouldn't be framed that way. We can reach an agreement on terms of abortion without addressing the larger question.
Delete