When Does Life Begin?

If you are pro-abortion, when does life begin, and explain why you chose this moment.

There is only one correct answer. Life doesn't begin at any point in time. It is merely passed from life to life.

Abortion Ethics

Abortion is far more complex than merely making a simplistic dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Few doctors endorse abortion as a means of birth control and such a grave step should never be taken lightly. Doctors, perhaps for insurance reasons, sometimes scare the daylights out of mother-to-be about the health of their child. But doctors are sometimes wrong, and it's important to trust ourselves in such matters. I've also met few absolutists on abortion, especially when they have to deal with the issue personally, as in a hypothetical in which a baby is an encephalic-- without a brain-- and the mother's life in danger. Someone wrote to me saying that this "did happen to my closest friends a couple of years ago, and even more ironically, at the time, I was teaching an eight week course on Biblical ethics when the severity of her condition came to light. In a nutshell, she had four small kids at home, pregnant with her fifth, when she started having problems. Doctors said that: a) The baby essentially had no brain, his limbs were severely deformed, and other internal organs where malformed beyond hope. b) Because of some uterine problems, there was a very high chance that sometime in the ninth month she would suffer some major hemorrhage that could prove fatal to her. They of course, wanted to abort right away. She refused, and moreover, wanted to carry the baby full term and have a natural childbirth. (Initially, she actually wanted to give birth at home). For me, I saw the ethical question in a whole new light, now that it had a face on it. The baby had a zero percentage chance of surviving. For a staunch pro-lifer, it was a dilemma acknowledging that the right-to-life can't always be seen as an absolute. It didn't seem right that the mother should possibly lose her life, and four small children lose their mother, when the baby wasn't going to live no matter what. Fortunately, the mother decided to have a C-section at the earliest possible time. (32 weeks or something like that...don't exactly remember) She got through it okay. The baby lived for three days or so."

God gives us minds and God gives doctors their skill. The point is not to look for rationalizations to support our actions but rather be prepared to acknowledge the complexity of life and that we must adapt moral principles to achieve the most ethical ends A one-size-fit-all principle that all life from conception on must be preserved at all costs can be immoral and even deadly, a principle, by the way, that anti-abortionists rarely extend to embracing military pacifism and mercy to criminals on death row.

How strange it is that some conservatives condemn those who abort in the second semester while allowing the state to abort their child in the sixty-second semester in armed combat in foolish wars. Finally, it seems to me that the issue isn't abortion as such, but the predicating choices made by those who conceived that unwanted child in the first place. It seems hypocritical to pat yourself on the back for protesting the taking of innocent life while at the same time acting irresponsibly to bring into existence innocent life.

Dr. Dobson's Threat

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

Full article here.

So do I. Alas, among the major presidential candidates, the one Republican has demonstrated fidelity to his spouse is the man whose ancestors had multiple wives. Sanctity of human life? Apparently this doesn't include torture and the tactics of shock and awe that have killed more than 3,800 Americans and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis. It also doesn't include unanamity on the use of capital punishment in America. The institution of marriage? Even apart from the GOP closet queens, Republican maurauders of small boys and large interns, amd conservative trollers for man on man sex in public bathrooms, I cannot fathom why anyone thinks the Republicans support pro-family values in light policies such as the extended tours of the National Guard and the president's vetoing of health care of children.

Of course, what Dobson means by the sanctity of human life is the eradication of abortion. That's like wishing that love and peace will prevail in Iraq. It's idealistic folly given what life really is. And why are there abortions? Could it not be that many of those abortions can be traced to the very same policies that conservative promote, such as an unfettered market place that markets filth from the most political conservative media outlets? And who are these people who are having the abortions? It's not the liberals, the atheists, the terrorists, the illegal immigrants. It's conservative Christians from Main Street USA who go to other conservative Christians on Main Street USA to have the abortions. Conservative are blind to the real issue, which has never been abortion but self-restraint versus promiscuity.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act

I consider the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to be correctly decided and trivial. It was correctly decided because I believe legislatures and judges are obliged to draw moral lines in the name of public policy. That line at least to me seems appropriate. Such lines are drawn all the time. The difference between speeding and not speeding is one mile per hour and the difference between misdemeanor theft and felony theft is one dollar. I don't buy the argument that the right to abortion opens the door to infanticide-- the so-called slippery slope fallacy. However, based on what I have read on it, it does seem to be a rather appalling procedure.

Having said that, I consider this decision to be trivial. First, it is exceedingly rare. Secondly, in the hypothetical where the mother's life is in peril, I cannot imagine that any jury would convict if the doctor had to choose between the life of the mother and the child and the mother's life was chosen. Thirdly, if the mother's life was not at risk, it is hard for me to believe that a mother would allow the fetus to incubate into the third trimester so it would even be an issue.

Abortion is far more complex than merely making a simplistic dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice positions. (Choosing to abort can be pro-life and choosing not to abort is of course a choice, so such labels are meaningless.) Few doctors endorse abortion as a means of birth control and such a grave step should never be taken lightly. Doctors, perhaps for insurance reasons, sometimes scare the daylights out of mother-to-be about the health of their child. But doctors are sometimes wrong, and it’s important to trust ourselves in such matters.

I’ve also met few absolutists on abortion, especially when they have to deal with the issue personally, as in a hypothetical in which a baby is an encephalic-- without a brain-- and the mother’s life in danger. Someone wrote to me saying that this “did happen to my closest friends a couple of years ago, and even more ironically, at the time, I was teaching an eight week course on Biblical ethics when the severity of her condition came to light. In a nutshell, she had four small kids at home, pregnant with her fifth, when she started having problems. Doctors said that: a) The baby essentially had no brain, his limbs were severely deformed, and other internal organs where malformed beyond hope. b) Because of some uterine problems, there was a very high chance that sometime in the ninth month she would suffer some major hemorrhage that could prove fatal to her. They of course, wanted to abort right away. She refused, and moreover, wanted to carry the baby full term and have a natural childbirth. (Initially, she actually wanted to give birth at home). For me, I saw the ethical question in a whole new light, now that it had a face on it. The baby had a zero percentage chance of surviving. For a staunch pro-lifer, it was a dilemma acknowledging that the right-to-life can't always be seen as an absolute. It didn't seem right that the mother should possibly lose her life, and four small children lose their mother, when the baby wasn't going to live no matter what. Fortunately, the mother decided to have a C-section at the earliest possible time. (32 weeks or something like that...don't exactly remember) She got through it okay. The baby lived for three days or so.”

I might also point out that abortion should not even be a moral issue in a society where young men and women have the self-respect, self-control, and a desire for a good future to exclude promiscuity from their life-- not just before marriage but for their entire life. Moral economy consists of supply and demand. If there was no demand for heroin, there would be no supply of heroin. Likewise, if there was no demand for promiscuity, the demand for abortion would I suspect also decline. So, for me, the biggest question is: why is it that promiscuity remains such a lure to cause so many people to shipwreck their lives and the lives of others?