This is one of these articles where I’m actually going to be upfront and honest about what I believe, rather than hiding behind my left wing shock jock alter-ego.
I have just finished watching the BBC docco “My Foetus”, which showed an abortion being carried out. It was certainly confronting, which I found surprising because although I am pro-choice it is not an issue I have ever been passionate about. In fact I’ve always felt a fair amount of sympathy for the pro-life case too. Perhaps part of the reason it confronted me was that as a vego who believes that humans undervalue animal life and don’t give animals enough credit, I could see where the pro-lifers were coming from in calling this murder. I believe that humans are incredibly good at ignoring certain things about animals and taking notice of other things about them in order to create a misleading scientific discourse about their intelligence and their worth. How do I know the same is not being done in the case of foetuses?
One pro-choice argument given in the docco was concern for the baby who was going to be born into a situation where it was not wanted. No one wants to see a situation where a person is resented by its mother and ends up being abused and disregarded as a result. But this happens all the time anyway. And no one but me has yet floated the argument that people should have to have a licence to procreate. So how strong is this argument for the pro-choicers? But then, just because it happens all the time doesn’t mean we should encourage this horrible situation. Children who grow up without love from their family often end up angry adults who seek to take revenge upon society by becoming politicians, and we have enough politicians around. Who would really complain if John Howard had have been aborted? Seriously, surely, we should avoid instances where children are unwanted by their families.
There was the confronting images of aborted foetuses that I think should be shown. They sickened me, but then I had felt woozy only half an hour beforehand when I had a blood nose. I hate that red liquid and it always makes me feel nauseous. That doesn’t make my blood nose immoral. And although I have a rather pronounced fear of blood, I think most people have some problem with the sight of blood. Is this not partially why we are all confronted by these images?
I have previously argued that a foetus in its early stages is simply an extension of the mother, incapable of surviving on its own. But where does that line get drawn? If a baby were born but had not yet had its umbillical cord cut, I would not be in favour of it being clubbed to death simply because the mother did not want the baby. But then, a baby that has been born is capable of survival without the umbillical cord. It is not really an extension of the mother anymore, so much as a human awaiting independence and survival.
I remember once hearing of a foetus which survived its abortion and grew into a healthy adult. But then this was on the cover of a women’s tabloid magazine and I didn’t read the article. Assuming we believe that this was even a true story, presumably someone looked after the foetus and provided it sustenance. But it does highlight something about my initial argument. What do I mean by “an extension of the mother, incapable of surviving on its own”? How many two-month-old babies do I know capable of survival entirely on their own? Then again, maybe some are capable of survival on their own. I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve story so surely there must have been a bub who raised itself into a functioning caveperson at some point. Even if one does believe in the Adam and Eve story, I’m pretty sure I have heard of a handful of “amazing tales of survival” where babies who have been left to fend for themselves have somehow survived. What is more, early term foetusses are undoubtedly incapable of survival on their own. Even late term aborted foetusses probably are, so perhaps my initial reaction was valid.
I also certainly don’t believe in the “every sperm is sacred” belief. There are so many cells of different types in the universe, sperms and eggs are nothing that special. After all, should teenagers who have wet dreams feel guilty? Should we feel remorse for all the sperm cells that don’t manage to swim all the way to the egg, whilst only one triumphs? When do a sperm cell and an egg become important? I suppose a simple answer would be the moment when they actually join together. But that doesn’t seem straightforward to me. After all, I don’t think the pro-lifers in the docco would have had much impact on anyone if they were showing pictures of aborted sperm cells that had just joined with eggs (assuming someone was willing to have an abortion performed whilst they smoked a pre-coital cigarette. What is more, drawing the line at this point would mean being opposed to the morning after pill as well, and I don’t see any valid distinction between the night before and the morning after pills). I gathered from the docco there seems to be a scientific distinction made between a foetus and an embryo, though the docco didn’t explore this. I doubt knowledge of such black-and-white distinctions would be convincing enough to push me one way or the other anyway, but I guess I’m intrigued.
In essence I think one of the main problems with the debate is what is so often the problem in emotive public debates. No one is precise about their message. The pro-lifers rely on images of foetusses that “look like babies” as though appearance of arms and legs is the most concerning thing. The pro-choicers rely on emotive stories about young mothers who simply can’t afford to have babies for various reasons.
No one ever really clarifies what it is about “life” that makes it so horrible for us to end it. Death happens all the time, and yes we usually feel awful about it, but that doesn’t remove its unavoidablity. Many people don’t feel as much problem about the death of an old person, as though their life is somehow unimportant and invalid. How often have you heard people say it was better that their grandparent died when they did, (and yet still these people are opposed to euthanasia)? In the case of accidental deaths of old people, people say things like “they would have died fairly soon anyway”. Is it as simple as some mathematical equation where we simply work out how many years of life each person is entitled to? Other people might feel less problem with the death of a baby or a foetus because it has not yet gained enough intelligence or life experience to be important.
So again, we are not precise about what we mean by “life”. People who take an “abortion is murder” stance are fairly clear about their opinion that a foetus is a living being, but I have already identified problems with this argument. Not insurmountable problems, just problems that show that this isn’t black and white for everyone. Sperm cells are living, as are plants, but few religions are opposed to the death of either.
I heard that the Jews believed that a baby gains its soul upon the moment of taking in its first breath. Pro-life Catholics don’t agree with this, but I’m not sure when it is they think the soul enters the body? Does it even enter the body? What is this mystical procedure whereby a sperm cell and an egg acquire a soul? Is the soul created and constructed for this baby? Does it grow along with the foetus from some semi-formed incarnation into a spiritual force, or does it simply appear fully-formed at some undetermined point in the pregnancy? Does the soul have characteristics of the parents’ souls?
I ask these questions in all seriousness because I do believe in a soul, but I don’t believe it’s quite the independent entity that it usually gets talked about by the major religions. Which is not to say that I’m right, I just don’t believe that.
And this is what I mean by saying we don’t specify what we mean by “life”. Is it the loss of a soul that we are concerned about? Can a soul really disappear? What happens to a soul when a person dies?, and if the answer is they go to paradise, I find it hard to get all that upset.
Presumably there are atheistic pro-lifers, but why? Why do they believe in the sanctity of life? When do they believe life starts? Equally, when do pro-choice atheists believe life starts?
People often grieve over miscarriages and abortions, but it doesn’t seem to weigh on their minds in quite the same way the death of a teenager in a car accident weighs on a parent or a friend. The parent will not have developed the same connection with that foetus because they have not yet had as many conversations or interactions as they might have had with a teenager. But many parents who don’t get along with their teenage offspring still manage to find remorse at their death.
Equally, people seem to be able to grieve for lost siblings they never knew. But what are they grieving over? The loss of conversations? The loss of life generally? Do they have some mystical connection to that person even though they never knew them?
Can one really have a connection with a foetus that has not yet said a word? If yes, then can one feel a connection to a sperm cell or even a sperm cell that has just joined with an egg only moments previously? Is this connection the important factor? If not, what is?
The more deeply you look into the issue the more you realise that each side must be deeply divided. There are probably Atheists and Christians and Jews and Moslems on both sides and they would all have different reasons for being on their side. This makes it difficult when some people believe in choice for one reason, but then someone else who believes in pro-choice doesn’t agree that your argument or reasons are valid.
My own religious beliefs about souls simply being created from the existing spiritual energy of the Universe, and then dispersing itself through the Universe upon death provides no real guidance. It’s a belief that allows (but doesn’t obligate) one to become more at ease with death. Life becomes simply one state for energy to be in and death does not represent the death of that energy (soul), simply its dispersal. Yet I am a vego so I obviously have a problem with death and killing.
There doesn’t seem to be anything black and white here. An in-depth discussion raises more questions than it answers. No one can really agree on what life is, what souls are, what is so important about them. And rarely does anyone come up with an explanation of these things that seems adequate to the opposition, certainly not adequate enough to convince them to change their mind. So I’m probably in a similar position to the documentary-maker. I am uneasy about abortion. But I’m not against it. I find it hard to tell anyone that they should conform to my beliefs about life and death and their sanctity or otherwise. So that leaves me not forcing pro-choicers to become pro-lifers or forcing pro-lifers to consider abortion. In the end I feel people have to make up their own minds, and that means I guess that I am pro-choice. Actually I think it’s more accurate to say I am ambivalent and confused and undecided. I’m not pro or anti anything because I don’t take an active stance on this. I hope I am never confronted with a situation where I have to make up my mind about it. I would certainly vote against any law that forced people to take the view that abortion is murder.
However, I feel it important to say that I find almost no doubt that abortion should be okay in the case of a woman having been raped. Of course, if this were the only available legal reason for having an abortion, women who wanted an abortion would in some cases falsely claim to have been raped, and I don’t think it would be our place to question such a claim. Rape is traumatic enough without putting a person through intensive questioning to determine their honesty. Once one crime has been committed, it is unfair to treat the victim as a criminal. Although, if rape were the only legal reason, I don’t think as many women would have abortions. I think many of them would give more thought to the potential future life of the baby. Many would also feel oppressed and forced into a situation they didn’t deserve to be in. Their children would feel equally alienated. And for men to stand on high preaching this sort of argument is hypocritical. Many men flee the coop in cases of unwanted pregnancies (eg. anti-abortionist Health Minister Tony Abbott), and they never really have to carry the burden of pregnancy. Nor can they ever truly understand the connection a woman feels with the foetus. Though let’s not forget that that foetus has been formed out of a man’s sperm cell too and is thus part of the bloke too. But yes any woman who has been forced to go through rape should not have to carry a baby when they have not even made a choice to have sexual intercourse (yes I realise that sentence was tautologist but it was for rhetorical effect). They should not be forced to keep a reminder around of such a traumatic and horrific experience. They should have the option to gain a child out of it if they want, but not be forced.
Wow! 2200 words just to say I’m ambivalent! Imagine if I actually had an opinion!