WHTT The Abortion Debate
The so called debate on abortion has no resemblance to the calm debates on other subjects which are discussed logically and impassionately, so that reasonable conclusions can be reached by reasonable people. Instead of having a logical and rational discussion about real issues, the pro life and pro choice advocates insist on nothing more than an emotional shouting match in which the side that shouts loudest and longest proclaims victory. These emotional battles, which are judged only by volume of the shouting match, are like the blaring horns of fog blinded ships passing through the night with total indifference to the noise of the other ship. The fact that the positions taken by both sides are obviously illogical and indefensible doesn't seem to bother anyone.
Pro life assumes that a person's life begins at conception, so terminating the growth of an embryo after conception is the equivalent of murder. Let's examine the validity of that assumption. First, we should agree on the process of reproduction: (1) egg and sperm cells are produced by a female and a male body; (2) an egg and many sperm cells are united in a way that they can merge together; (3) the egg combines with one sperm cell so they merge into a single cell called a zygote; conception is another name for the formation of the zygote; (4) the zygote grows by cell division, and is called an embryo for the first eight weeks; (5) after eight weeks, the embryo is called a fetus, and it continues to grow and develop until birth nine months after the egg and sperm merged into the zygote.
Next, we must agree on the meaning of the word "begins" before we can reasonably ask when life begins. It is easy to define when activities begin. That is the point in time when that activity did not previously exist. For example, your reading of this paragraph began a few seconds ago. It is much more difficult, however, to define a beginning point for an object. For example, consider a book you recently read. When did that book begin? The activity of the publisher to edit, print and distribute that specific book began perhaps several years ago. The activity of writing the book began for the author a few years before that. But that book is more than just the activities of the author and the publisher. It is also things, like paper and ink. When did those things begin? The paper didn't begin when the publisher printed the words on it. Neither did it begin when it was cut to book size sheets from a large roll of paper. You might guess that the paper began when parts of trees were processed with chemicals to make the roll of paper, but even that is not true. Only the activity of the processing plant began. The fibers that make up the paper were merely transformed into flat sheets from their earlier shape as bits of wood pulp. That wood pulp came from trees that grew from seeds in a forest. But it is essential to understand that even those seeds were not the beginning point, because the seeds came from previous trees, that in turn grew from seeds from still earlier trees, and so on back in time for hundreds of millions of years.
Now, lets return to the question of when life begins. We will all agree that life begins before a full term fetus is born, because that baby could have lived a normal and happy life even if it had been surgically removed from the mother's womb days, or even weeks before its full term birth. Looking earlier in time, there is only continuous growth and development of the fetus from the embryo, and before that from the zygote. That brings us back to focus on conception. That is the time interval during which an egg with partial chromosomes, and a single sperm cell with partial chromosomes, merge into a zygote with full chromosomes. This process of merging doesn't begin anything. It is only nature's way of transforming an egg cell and a sperm cell into a zygote cell. This is exactly analogous to the processing plant's transformation of wood pulp and chemicals into flat sheets of paper. Both transform existing materials into a different function, but neither creates something new from a vacuum in which nothing previously existed.
The egg cell, the sperm cell, and the zygote cell are all equally important and essential in the development and life of any human being. If any one of those three cells was missing, then no baby could be born. But, in just the same way that the life of a tree does not begin with its seed, neither does the life of a human begin with an egg cell and sperm cell. Those essential cells grew within the bodies of a mother and a father, and transported life from the biological parents to the new baby. The answer to the question of when a life began is not conception. Your life, and mine, and everyone else's began hundreds of millions of years ago, and has since been fragilely passed from each generation to the next in an unbroken chain that links each of us back to the first sparks of life on the planet earth. Some religious leaders want you to believe that a person's life begins with a magical miracle bestowed by God at conception. For the complex question of when life begins, that is a simple answer that is simply wrong. Every link in the chain of life from hundreds of millions of years ago is equally important.
One must be very cautious with generalizations about the immorality of terminating the growth of a zygote or an embryo. It is true that if the natural progression of that collection of genetic material is allowed to proceed without interference, then a baby will likely develop. It is, however, dangerously faulty logic to then conclude that stopping the natural progression of genetic material is a great moral evil comparable to murder. Remember that every link in the reproductive chain is equally essential and important in the life of a baby. For example, before the egg and sperm cell can merge during conception, they must have an opportunity to be brought together. No baby could ever be born if an egg and sperm cell were not provided with an opportunity to combine.
If it is morally wrong to stop the growth of genetic material after an egg and sperm cell have combined, then it must also be just as morally wrong to interfere with the equally vital link of providing the egg and sperm with an opportunity to combine. Interfering with either link in the chain of life will equally prevent a baby from being born. The reader is unlikely to be happy with the logical implications of calling it morally wrong to interfere with providing an opportunity for egg and sperm to combine. First, all forms of contraceptives directly interfere with the opportunity for egg and sperm to combine. Obviously, more babies would be born if no one used contraceptives, so one must equate use of any contraceptives as being just as morally wrong as abortion of an embryo.
But it doesn't stop there. A woman gets pregnant because she had sex at a time when she was fertile. The reason another woman is not pregnant may not be because she hasn't had sex at all. Many women have sex without contraceptives, but do not get pregnant. The reason many of them are not pregnant is that they don't have sex at the time in their monthly cycle when they are fertile. A woman who does not have unprotected sex at every possible opportunity when she is fertile, is just as surely preventing the possible birth of a baby as a woman who aborts an embryo. The inevitable conclusion here is that every woman who does not exert a maximum effort to become pregnant when she is fertile, has equally prevented the potential birth of a baby just as surely as any woman who aborts an embryo.
But wait. It gets still worse. Any parent who teaches a teenage daughter to abstain from sex when she is fertile, is also obstructing the potential for a baby to be born! Men who would force a woman to not abort an embryo, must apply equal force to insist that all teen age daughters have frequent sex whenever they might be fertile!!
Since eggs and sperm and zygotes and embryos are all just different stages of genetic material that might become a baby if the natural progression is not interfered with, then their moral status is equivalent. If it is morally wrong to stop the growth of an embryo, then it is equally morally wrong for any girl or woman to abstain from sex when she might be fertile, and for any man to encourage her to abstain from sex with any willing male partner, even though she may be his own wife or daughter.
Don't worry. Women and teen age girls are not guilty of any moral evil by not getting pregnant, just as a pregnant woman would not be guilty of any evil if she aborts her embryo. The previous conclusions are logical, but they are also obviously absurd and unacceptable, so the premise they derive from must be wrong. That premise is the belief that genetic material has a high moral status because it might progress to become a human being. The fact is that genetic material like eggs, sperm, zygotes and embryos are just collections of cells in the body, and they have no higher moral status than any other group of body cells.
This understanding resolves the discomfort felt by pro life advocates when deciding what to do after a woman is impregnated by rape, or a teen age girl is impregnated by incest. If the resulting embryo were a human being, as some pro life zealots insist, then it would be morally wrong to kill that human being. But that position is dangerously misguided. Eggs, sperm, zygotes, and embryos have neither any special moral status, nor any right to progress into a human being. It is, however, a moral and psychological tragedy of epic proportions to further abuse an already traumatized victim of rape or incest by forcing her to carry a resulting embryo to term. The pro life zealots' irrational over emphasis on conception in the long and complex chain of human development has been directly responsible for much avoidable suffering and emotional pain.
Of course, some pro choice zealots are also irrational. The pro choice position can be easily summed up. It is a woman's body, and only she should have the right to control it. We need to examine that position. First, we can all agree that no woman has the right to kill a child, no matter whether it was born 10 years or 10 seconds before. There should also be universal agreement that a pregnant woman cannot choose to kill her fetus one day, or even one month before its full term delivery. That clearly puts some limit on a woman's right to control her own body. Almost everyone would further agree that a woman shouldn't be permitted to abort a fetus older than six months or two trimesters. All pro choice people advocate a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, and opinion becomes increasingly divided as the fetus develops in age over the second trimester.
Even the staunchest pro choice zealots concede that there is a qualitative difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester one, but few understand the nature of that difference. The key factor which separates those two fetal ages is the ability to survive outside the mother's womb. With today's medical technology, an embryo, which is less than two months old, could not possibly survive outside the womb, and its moral status is identical to the other genetic material of eggs, sperm, and zygotes. Conversely, a fetus that is eight months old can easily survive outside the mother.
We have now arrived at a criteria much more valuable than the useless question about when life begins. A third trimester fetus is potentially capable of surviving outside the womb, and it deserves the full and equal protection society promises to all its citizens. A first trimester fetus and older to approximately five months cannot possibly survive outside the womb, and it deserves no more protection than is provided for the equivalent genetic material of eggs and sperm. It should be noted that as medical technology improves, the age of fetal survivability will likely decrease to below five months, and the age when protection is afforded by society should similarly be adjusted.
Mother And Child Have Equal Rights
There is no ethical or moral reason to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus younger than the age of medical survivability. Conversely, a fetus older than the age of medical survivability deserves society's full and equal protection. But does that mean that a woman must carry an older fetus to term? Let's pose a hypothetical situation in which a 14 year old virgin is assaulted, raped, and severely beaten by a deranged and genetically deformed psychopath. The girl lapses into a coma, and stays in critical condition for six months. Early tests revealed that she was impregnated by her attacker, but the doctors refused to abort because any additional trauma to a critical patient might kill her. Then her condition began to slowly improve so that she emerged from the coma after seven months obviously pregnant. Needless to say, she would want no part of the evil fruit inside her, but a third trimester fetus deserves society's full protection. Whose rights are more important?
Many pro life people would insist that the girl suffer another two months of trauma until the baby was born, followed by a lifetime of increased emotional pain. Most pro choice advocates would murmur things like "poor girl", "terrible situation", "defenseless baby", and "control of her own body", but no satisfactory answer would emerge. The only correct answer is that the rights of both the girl and the fetus are equally important, and both should be equally protected! The current loud and emotional shouting match between pro life and pro choice zealots makes it difficult to see that there are reasonable alternatives to abortion. Everyone is polarized to believe they must choose between the right to life for the helpless baby or the right to an abortion so the abused woman can pursue happiness. Almost no one has considered the situation from society's viewpoint.
A third trimester fetus deserves no less protection to its right to life than any other member of society. But the always overlooked point is that neither does it deserve any greater rights than those of all other citizens. The fact is that no citizen is promised the absolute right to the best possible life by society. People of all ages die every day of easily preventable causes such as malnutrition, fires, auto accidents, and treatable diseases. Society could save thousands of lives each year by simply eliminating alcohol and tobacco. Society doesn't have the resources to do even that. In fact, the best that society can promise to every member is a reasonably healthy environment with a marginally sufficient life support system of food, air, water, and shelter. A perfect environment with the best of everything would help many people live longer, but no one is guaranteed the right to a perfect environment.
So where does that leave our hypothetical seven month old fetus? It would obviously have a better chance to survive if it could live in a perfect environment. For the fetus, that perfect environment is to just stay inside the womb. If the owner of that womb agreed, no one would consider any alternative. But if the girl or woman doesn't agree, then the fetus has the right to no more than a reasonably healthy environment and life support system. No one in society has the right to improve the quality of their life by harming another person. The girl in this example would suffer great emotional pain if she were forced to carry the fetus to term. The fetus does not have the right to remain inside the girl's womb against her wishes, but it does have the right to a reasonable chance at life, so an abortion is not acceptable. Most people would be surprised to learn that there is an easy way to resolve those conflicting rights. Just induce a premature birth, and give appropriate medical care to the new baby. That is so obvious that many people can not believe that they didn't think of it before!
When people argue loudly and emotionally rather than reasonably and logically, the obvious is usually the last thing to be discovered. Now, do you think you can fully resolve the abortion controversy and finally put it to rest? "Sure," you might reply in a confident tone. "Abortion should be freely permitted during the first trimester, but prohibited thereafter. If a woman decides she doesn't want to be pregnant after the first trimester, then a premature birth can be induced, and medical resources can be used to try to save the premature infant. That solution actually fits pretty well with most current laws about abortion."
Public Health Protection
Unfortunately, the simplistic solution above fits current laws much too well. The best way to resolve the abortion issue is to make all abortions illegal, except for cases of medical risk to the woman or where force was involved, like rape or incest! From a moral perspective, a first trimester fetus has no moral stature, and deserves no more protection than is given to eggs and sperm. However there is another serious issue that is seldom discussed in the heated emotional arguments about the morality of abortion. That issue is the health of the woman. One of the statistics frequently abused in support of easy abortions is that there are fewer complications from abortion than there are from carrying a fetus to term and giving birth. That statistic may or may not be true, but it is surely irrelevant.
The appropriate comparison should be between giving birth versus not getting pregnant in the first place. In the decades since abortion was legalized, many hundreds of thousands of women have had abortions, so it is likely that there were millions of sex acts without the protection of contraceptives. The pro life zealots sometimes quote the number of abortions to wail about the number of babies that were murdered. That is nonsense. There were no babies killed by first trimester abortions. There was only the termination of genetic material, and a lot less was terminated by abortion than by women passing unfertilized eggs through their bodies.
The number that should concern everyone is the millions of times men and women have had sex without the protection of any contraceptive. Until the decade of the eighties, that was not such a serious problem. The only risks were unwanted pregnancies, which could be resolved by abortion, and a few venereal diseases that could be cured by medical treatment. More than a generation of women have grown accustomed to relying on abortion to protect themselves from the risks of unprotected sex. That has become a terribly dangerous trend. With AIDS now a certain death sentence, and an epidemic of other venereal diseases that cannot be treated, it is criminally negligent for the government to encourage unprotected sex by making abortions easily available. To protect the public health, abortions should be prohibited at least until there is a vaccine to cure or prevent AIDS, and the epidemic of venereal diseases is brought under control. Oral contraceptives should be available to married women only, with condoms much more easily available to all people. Oral contraceptives encourage unprotected sex, but they provide no shield against AIDS or any other venereal disease. Oral contraceptives are fine for married or otherwise committed couples who have sex only with each other, but they are very unhealthy for people who have sex with anyone who previously had sex with someone else.
Some readers might sound a troubled note, "But there is a big problem now, and what you are saying would just make it worse. That problem is that a lot of girls in high school get pregnant. Even with oral contraceptives and abortions, there are still a lot of babies born to young girls. Prohibiting abortions would only make that problem worse." It is true that teen age pregnancy is a very serious problem all over America. But for all the reasons mentioned before, neither abortion nor oral contraceptives is the answer. Since AIDS kills in just a few years after transmission, teenagers have more of their life to lose, and they need even more protection than adults against venereal diseases. The best answer for those children in new adult bodies is to not have sex, at least until they are old enough to act responsibly. Unfortunately that good advice is not likely to be followed. The next best answer is parental responsibility.
Email the author: 
Optmst@Gmail.Com