More thoughts about Abortion

I'm sure this has been better said elsewhere, and it probably repeats things I've written here before. But when a friend of mine emailed me (when I drew her attention to this article), and she said essentially that it is presumptuous of us to claim that abortion is murder, that the unborn child is really a human being, I replied to her and tried to say more clearly what I believe. I liked my response well enough to copy it here...

I believe that abortion is, without exception, the number one human rights issue of our time, period.

I can see no sound, repeatable, verifiable line within the development of a child from conception on whereby it would be reasonable to say "Now this entity is a human being, whereas a moment ago it was not." This was ultimately what turned my mind away from being pro-choice to being pro-life. With such a sliding scale as human development, any point we choose to say as the defining human-becoming moment will in truth be arbitrary.

There are a number of points that cascade from how we as a society choose to treat unborn children at various stages of development. One of the most consequential is that very arbitrariness that allows those in power to choose a definition of who is human, and who is not. If those in power decide that unborn babies before a certain, arbitrary point in the pregnancy are not human today, why do they do so? Is it because the child can't breathe on her own? Is it because her heart can't beat on its own, or is underdeveloped? Is it because of any lack of physical development? Then what keeps those in power from extending that logic to others who have similar, or other, developmental hindrances, but happen to have made it out of the womb alive?

There are some pro-life arguments comparing the issue of abortion to the issue of slavery that are specious. But the core issue that does make sense to me is the parallel between how those in power are the ones who define what "human" is. Before it was wealthy white male landowners who arbitrarily decided, based on the convenience involved in growing their crops more efficiently, that it was most convenient to define African-Americans as less than fully human. Today, it is convenient for pregnant women, their boyfriends, and families to decide that children who are in an earlier stage of development should be defined as less than human. Slaves could be beaten or killed with impunity because they were less than fully human, mere objects to be owned. Unborn children can be killed and disposed of because they are considered less than fully human, mere lumps of flesh.

You say that not everyone is in agreement that abortion is homicide, and presumably, therefore it is illegitimate for a government to make laws regarding such a hotly contested matter. Would you also agree, then, that on issues like combating poverty, creating gay marriage, or stopping the Iraq war, the government should also be silent because these issues are contested?

My point is that we choose a perspective from which to say that the government should or should not legislate this way or that. I believe that a philosophy founded on scriptural concepts (perhaps that's not the most precise term to describe what I'm trying to point towards) is the soundest basis for a peaceful and just society. Just as I believe that torture is always wrong, always a sin, and thus should always be a crime; I believe freedom of religion is a good thing, and thus should not be proscribed within a society; and many other issues; I also believe that because there is no good point at which we can define human life as starting except conception, we should protect those people from that earliest point of development.

We would make any number of sacrifices, as individuals and as a society, to protect people once they breathe air instead of amniotic fluid, once that cord has been cut--why not before that point? We as a society are keen to talk about DNA as the conclusive way to identify someone--so does a baby's DNA change when they leave the womb? We rightly want to protect a wide variety of living beings, basically just because they are--why not humans in an earlier stage of development than our own?

I have tried, over the years, to stay open to new arguments regarding the nature and identity of embryos, fetuses, and babies. I am still more than willing to hear out anyone who wants to present an argument that they believe will convince an open-minded listener that abortion is not an act wherein a human being dies. I'm still listening. But unless and until I find that compelling argument otherwise, I believe that intentionally aborting an unborn child is indeed killing another human being, and is therefore something that we, as Christians (if not simply as human beings) should seek to bring an end to.

There are a whole host of other facets to the pro-life position. I've tried here to (among other things) attempt to answer your question about the best way to define who is human. To me, defining "human" is a dangerous, frightening business, fraught with the kind of responsibility you don't find much of anywhere else. The moment you choose a line to say this person is human, while that thing is not human, you open up a justification for killing whatever/whoever is on the other side of that line from where you yourself are.

I would think that it would be the most natural thing in the world for someone who believes in universal human rights (like Amnesty International), who believes that people from all cultures and socioeconomic levels should be treated with respect, who believes that the lines between those in power and those outside power are wrong ways to define a person's value, would understand innately that the best definition of who is human should be as broad a definition as possible.

To me, those who stand up for the voiceless, the powerless, and the underprivileged should see unborn children as a no-brainer candidate for the clearest definition of those categories. It so boggles my mind that the two groups are generally not defended by the same people that, in the end, I feel compelled to resort to cynicism in my explanatory efforts. But I won't go there, here.