|
Articles:
Society
Can
We Reach a Compromise on Abortion?
Sunday, May 8, 2005
When
it comes to the hot-button issue of abortion, there are two
bitterly-divided sides. Most people who have an opinion on
the subject are either staunchly pro-choice or adamantly pro-life.
Neither side will give an inch, and there are few people in
between. Nevertheless, I believe the solution to the problem
lies in the middle of the road. Then again, what are the chances
of getting either side to budge a little and put this issue
to rest once and for all?
In
one corner we have liberal-minded people who believe a woman
has the right to decide what she can do to her own body. At
first this seems like a reasonable belief. Personal liberty
dictates that one can do whatever one chooses, within the
confines of the law. If the government is telling you what
you can or can't do to your own body, such action would amount
to tyranny. Can you imagine living in a state where the government
bans tattoos and body piercing, forces you to have a medical
procedure, or bans you from one? In this case, it would seem
the essence of liberty lies in a person knowing what is best
for themselves. To pro-choice advocates, terminating an unwanted
pregnancy rests comfortably in the realm of this liberty.
The
pro-life camp would beg to disagree. They argue that while
choosing your own medical assistance is your own business,
in the case of pregnancy you are dealing with another human
life. Killing another person constitutes murder, and is therefore
illegal.
From
there we have the battle of the millennium. One facet of this
debate concentrates on where life begins, and therefore, where
the threshold lies for terminating a pregnancy.
Pro-life's
position: "Life begins at conception. If you terminate
a pregnancy, even in the first day, you are killing another
human being."
Pro-choice:
"Life begins at birth. Until the baby is born, it's not
an independent human life. It's a part of the mother's body,
and until it leaves that body it is not a human being susceptible
to murder."
For
the sake of argument, suspend any belief you may have that
upon conception, a human life is bestowed with a soul. We'll
get back to that. For the moment, let's focus on biology and
physiology and the related empirical information.
Consider
that upon conception, the sperm and egg join to form a single-celled
zygote. Is a single-celled organism "human"? Is
removing this single cell from your body any different than
killing a viral or bacterial infection, or an infestation
of some sort of parasite? Is it any different than shedding
skin cells or losing brain cells, which we do constantly?
The
zygote begins cellular division and becomes known as an embryo.
Several days after conception, it implants itself in the uterine
wall. The placenta develops a connection between the mother
and the embryo, providing nourishment. At this point, is the
embryo any different from a cancerous tumor? It's merely a
group of cells that feeds off the blood supply of the host.
If it were cancer, we would be delighted to remove it.
In
the next few weeks, a heart develops and begins to pump blood
through the developing body. Basic facial features and limbs
begin to develop, along with rudimentary organs. The yet-primitive
nervous system begins to respond to stimuli. At this point,
we're still in the first trimester. Response to stimuli can
be seen in the simplest forms of life, such as the amoeba.
Amoebas don't think, and neither does a human embryo in the
first trimester.
From
here, it can be argued that brain activity begins early in
the second trimester, when the embryo becomes known as a fetus.
Some contend that basic brain waves can be detected late in
the first trimester, and others believe that the fetus doesn't
develop actual thought until some time later. Regardless,
it is about here in the early part of the second trimester,
around twelve to fourteen weeks of life that the fetus may
begin to actually think.
I
believe it is brain activity that marks the beginning of human
life, and the termination threshold lies in this area. Without
a functioning brain, a life form has no concept of life or
death. A worm, for example, responds to stimuli, but does
it think? No. Does it worry about dying? No. With no cognitive
ability, and very little motor function, an embryo in the
first trimester has no idea that it is even alive. Is something
that only vaguely resembles a human, is incapable of thought,
and has not even been born yet a "human"? Logically,
I believe an abortion would not constitute murder when performed
in the first trimester, in the first thirteen weeks of life.
How can you murder something that has yet to develop brain
activity, and has yet to even be born? How can you murder
an unthinking mass of cells that is still a part of the host
organism? At this point, I equate abortion with having your
appendix removed. Both are merely a mass of cells in the host
body.
Some
may argue that real human thought doesn’t begin until
birth, when the baby is presented with the stimuli of the
world, the parents, language, etc. But with no way of knowing
exactly what a fetus is thinking, we should err on the side
of caution. Once a fetus can think, it has the potential for
developing self-awareness. As such, it may know it is alive,
and may consciously fear death, and suffer in death. It is
here that we can call an abortion "murder". You
could argue that, even before developing the ability to think,
an embryo has the potential to develop thought and humanity.
I don't believe that argument has any merit, however. If you
followed that logic, than any sex act has the potential to
create a human being. Should all sex acts result in birth?
I believe that is an archaic belief. Like contraception, aborting
during the first trimester prevents the realization of a thinking
human entity.
After
this rationale, I propose that abortion should be legal in
the first trimester, and illegal after that, except possibly
in the instance of rape.
Neither
side would like this decision.
Pro-choice
advocates would argue that it still takes liberties away from
the mother. But after the first trimester, I believe we are
dealing with an actual human being, capable of self-awareness,
and therefore susceptible to murder.
Pro-life
advocates would insist that an unborn baby is bestowed with
a soul from God upon conception, and stealing that soul constitutes
murder. Is there any scientific evidence of a "soul"?
I don't believe so. The concept of a "soul" is purely
a religious construct. Since we live in a nation where we
are free to choose our own religious beliefs, one can decide
for oneself whether or not we possess a soul. Since this is
a subjective matter, one cannot insist that a single-celled
zygote has a soul and force that belief upon others who may
disagree.
I
believe I've presented a rational argument to come to this
decision. I realize I've opened myself to a number of arguments,
such as "does a brain-dead adult human cease to be human,
and can they then be euthanized without it being considered
murder?" My short answer is yes, but I'll go into that
another time. Regardless, since I've failed to provide an
unquestionable argument in this debate, it will obviously
continue. I do believe the solution to this problem lies in
a compromise such as the one I've presented here. Forget your
personal beliefs, and concentrate on the evidence and logic
of the matter. It seems like both sides believe that if they
give an inch, the other side will take a mile. They seem to
believe that unless they blindly and adamantly support their
position, they stand to lose everything. But unless both sides
are willing to give a little, we'll be arguing this topic
until the end of humanity.
A
long dispute means both parties are wrong. --Voltaire
|
