For God’s Sake! Why are Pro-Lifers so Crazy? Abortion vs.
Infanticide.
A recent article I pulled off
Google News reports that a Dr. Minerva at the University of Melbourne is
receiving death threats. She just published an article in Journal of Medical Ethics making the case that abortion a pregnancy
is no different from killing a newborn baby. Minerva’s paper claimed that,
wherever the law allowed abortion, it is illogical not to allow infanticide
(under the same set of criteria for child health).
The death threats come from members
of the pro-life religious right. This is no surprise – after all, it makes
sense that people who oppose abortion should also oppose an argument supporting
the extension of abortion-like behavior. But really, death threats? If you’re
really pro-life, how can you conscience threatening to kill another human being, full grown or not? Not only is your
position illegal and illogical, but sadly it is all too common among members of
the vocal religious right. All you have to do is drive on I-75 through South
Carolina – or really anywhere in the Bible Belt – and watch the billboards and
crosses on the side of the road. You’ll a sign saying “Jesus saves” right next
to an adult-only store. It’s pretty hypocritical.
Okay. Now that I’ve ranted
sufficiently, let’s get down to the meat of the issue: is she right? I say no.
Not having read her article in full, I cannot claim to address the specific
claims and evidence she presents in writing, but I believe I can offer a
legitimate argument against her central position as explained in the article
cited below.
My counterargument uses the
mathematical process of providing a counterexample as proof that a statement is
invalid. Specifically, let’s look at the case where a woman is raped, resulting
in an unwanted pregnancy. A case could be made for the law to protect the
woman’s right to an abortion in this case – particularly if she sought one
immediately after the incident when the embryo was only a very few cells. Such
a case would rely on the fact that the woman did not choose to have the baby
and that the embryo, though conceived, is only a few cells and cannot be termed
sentient or even “human” using those terms as conventionally applied to
children and adults. In short, it is not unreasonable to assume that law might
give the woman the right to have an abortion.
But these ethical arguments do not
apply after birth. Once born, the infant is an individual – completely separate
from the mother. As an individual, with the human rights due an individual
(regardless of dignity or mental capabilities or anything else), the infant
could not be morally harmed. After all, we condemn child abuse. My point here
really comes down to the fact that, unlike the abortion, here there is another
option: if the mother still does not want the child and somehow failed to get
an abortion, she could put the child up for adoption.
In the end, as strongly as I
disagree with Minerva’s argument, so I also support her right to publish her
opinion so long as she supports it with evidence and analysis. The pro-life
death threats – oxymorons that they are – are the only part of the whole
scenario that cannot be conscienced, under any circumstances.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8428050/melbourne-abortion-author-gets-death-threats
1 comment:
I'd like to build on your case for protecting newborns. I would also like to make a case against aborting fetuses in their later stages of development.
Newborns aren’t given enough credit. It’s conventional wisdom that their physical brains are far from fully developed and so to think that they experiencing the world in a complex and meaningful manner is laughable. But conventional wisdom is wrong. Newborn infants display complex behavior that suggests their consciousness is developed to a much greater level than what is generally assumed.
Physiologist and author of Mind of Your Newborn Baby, David Barnes explains that the inner working of the mind of an infant is exemplified when he or she “purposefully reaches out, gives an inquisitive look, frowns (or screams) in protest, gurgles in satisfaction, or gasps in excitement.” He points to an interesting bit of research that determined that infants “listen attentively as long as mother reads forward, but will stop listening as soon as she reads backward (nonsense) – another indication of good thinking.”
Barnes goes on to highlights other research suggesting that conventional wisdom of the inner workings of infants is largely unsubstantiated. However, what is more interesting is Barnes’ case for the cognition of late fetuses. He, as well as another article in a Scientific American article, points to research claiming that fetuses spent much of their time in REM sleep, a phenomena associate with very active mental state. Barnes points to how late fetuses respond defensively to needles are injected into the womb. Barnes reports that “In a documented report of work via ultrasound, a baby struck accidentally by a needle not only twisted away, but located the needle barrel and hit it repeatedly--surely an aggressive and angry behavior. Similarly, ultrasound experts have reported seeing twins hitting each other, while others have seen twins playing together, gently awakening one another, playing cheek-to-cheek, and even kissing.” Barnes point of that fetus can be taught to kick on command and even in particular position. He reports that one parent even taught the child, still in the womb, to kick in a complete circle.
Barnes’ work, along with myriad other studies, put forward the idea that we don’t know a whole lot about the inner working of late fetuses and infants. Until the subject is better understood, abortions on late fetuses and infanticide stand upon questionable assumptions that fetuses and infants are not aware beings who have an interest in living. For now we should give late fetuses and infants the benefit of the doubt and prohibit their killing. After all we don’t condemn someone to the death sentence unless all reasonable doubt has been eliminated.
Post a Comment