Destroying Others to better Ourselves
Almost without exception, I think of a quote from Mother Teresa, when I hear arguments with regard to abortion: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
Intellectually, I can understand many of the arguments on the “Pro-Choice” side of the debate. One of the most common, and perhaps most persuasive, can be succinctly summarized: “My Body — My Choice.” The idea is that a human fetus is just a “mass of cells,” which exists only as part of the mother’s body, and that the fetus cannot live outside of the womb. However, this argument gives rise to the incessant debate: “When does a fetus become a person?” Or phrased from a more philosophical perspective: “When does ‘life’ begin?”
Presumably, a “person” would be endowed with “inalienable rights,” and that individual also would be deserving of the protections of government. If complete “separateness” is the test, should that mean that abortion must be available up until the moment that the umbilical cord is cut? If viability is the test, what happens as medical technology advances allowing fetuses to be “viable” at increasingly earlier points in pregnancy? If such technology is applied, who should bear the costs of “care” both in the near term and long term?
A half-century ago, the Supreme Court believed (incorrectly) that it had cut the Gordian Knot. In Roe v. Wade, the court arbitrarily divided gestation into trimesters, with parental “choice” decreasing and government supervision increasing as the term of pregnancy progresses. While the effort was likely undertaken with the best of intentions, it represented an unfortunate, ill-advised, and one might even say “imprudent” application of jurisprudence. The fundamental shortcomings of Roe led to it being overturned earlier this year.
What then should be the controlling factor? As has been noted before:
If one thinks that a fetus is “just a collection of cells,” which are not worth “saving,” and that destruction should be allowed with impunity, try smashing defenseless eggs in the nests of Bald Eagles, California Condors, and other “protected species.”
Should one do so, (s)he is almost certain to incur the wrath of the state, and the full weight of the federal government will almost certainly come crashing down upon the actor. Are other species more deserving of protection than our own? Are the yet unborn offspring or the entirely dependent fledgling young of such creatures more deserving of care than a human fetus?
Also, I can understand the debate from the perspective of a cost-benefit analysis: It takes considerable effort to bear and rear children, and the delay before they are self-sufficient or productive members of society can be measured in decades. Who then should bear the costs of bringing a fetus to term and rearing an infant to maturity? Unfortunately, many persons never achieve those (worthy and necessary) goals. What is to be said of or done with such persons? Should parents forever bear the personal responsibility and financial burdens for their offspring (even if unplanned or unwanted) or must the costs and responsibility fall upon other parties, who are entirely unrelated to those parents and children, as members of the society, collective, or “village”?
If a strict cost-benefit analysis is to be applied, what is the benefit or value of any single human life? Is it reasonable to spend significant resources and to limit productivity in order to delay the death of an individual, whose (continued) life is not “viable,” or to fend off the extinction of a species, which is likely to go extinct regardless (including our own)? It should be noted that all of us die eventually, and that our importance in the cosmic scheme of things is nearly irrelevant. Consider this also with regard to the premiums that we are commanded to pay for “Green Energy” on the (fanciful) hope of avoiding “climate change” and in a (futile) effort to “save the planet.”
Interestingly, there is a high correlation between the class of persons who zealously argue in favor of a “right” to an abortion and persons who are ardent “conservationists.” It is not a stretch to imagine an electric vehicle, which is clad with multiple bumper stickers: COEXIST … No War … Pro-Choice is Pro Family … Save the Whales — Seals — Newts — Forests — Planet, etc. Does the irony escape such persons entirely?
That is not to say that there are not imaginable scenarios, in which I (or nearly anyone) likely would make the difficult choice to favor abortion (versus a given alternative). It is unreasonable for law to require a mother to carry to term an entirely non-viable fetus or to continue a pregnancy when her own life is at imminent risk. It is nearly impossible for anyone to argue convincingly that it is equitable, just, or fair to force a woman to bear to term a fetus, which is the product of rape or incest. In such instances, the mother likely had no choice or responsibility for conception. There is no element of personal responsibility to be encouraged or advanced by forcing her to carry the child to term. The resulting “harms” to the mother, her family, and to the child itself almost certainly would continue after birth in such circumstances.
Nevertheless, limited exceptions to a given rule do not negate the propriety or benefit of that rule (or moral). One should not casually “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” This is hardly different from scenarios, in which I can imagine committing homicide in self-defense or engaging in theft as an act of desperation. Murder and theft are no less “wrong” even if it might be argued (convincingly) that there are circumstances, in which most of us would deem the otherwise immoral acts to be “justified.” It is also not sufficient to say that nearly every human being is capable of engaging in the most heinous of evil acts under the right circumstances. Are we then to be judged in comparison to the most depraved among us and to conduct ourselves consistent with our worst possible acts?
Our species has an inherently selfish and greedy nature. We are only degrees removed from our more bestial cousins. The distinguishing factor between human(e) beings and lesser beasts is our capacity for intellect and our ability to reason. With great effort and practiced consideration, we have the ability to act contrary to our selfish nature. We have the ability to be different from and better than that which we would be based upon instinct alone. However, when we embrace our inherent nature, we tend to abandon intellect and reason. Merely doing what at the time feels “good” and “natural” is oftentimes self-destructive and counterproductive in the long run.
