You may have heard that Oklahoma recently banned sex-selection abortions. Interestingly, they are only the third state to do so (Illinois and Pennsylvania are the other two). Considering the fact that the only major news source to pick up the story was the Washington Times, however, you probably have not heard that The National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden has ruled that sex-selection abortions are legal in that country (since there is no law forbidding them). Apparently, quite a few “tourists” come to Sweden to abort their children because they do not like their gender.
The vast majority of Americans – even pro-choice Americans – disapprove of sex-selection abortions. Polls show that about 85% of Americans believe aborting a child because of its gender is a morally insufficient reason (and many countries ban the practice). But why? After all, if abortion is not a moral evil, what does it matter why a woman chooses to abort her baby?
Journalist David Harsanyi asked this very question in a recent article in the Denver Post. An atheist, and former pro-choicer (one might describe his current position as “squeamishly pro-life”), Harsanyi asks, “If you oppose selective abortions, but not abortion overall, I wonder why? How is terminating the fetus because it’s the wrong sex any worse than terminating the fetus for convenience’s sake? The fate of the fetus does not change, only the reasoning for its extinction does.”[1]
Indeed. What’s the difference between aborting her baby because she won’t be able to finish school, and aborting her baby so she can fit into her prom dress? And what’s the difference between aborting her baby because of financial considerations, and aborting her baby because she wanted a boy rather than a girl? In all cases, and for all reasons, the result is the same: a dead baby. If it is legal for a mother to kill a baby simply because she does not want it, the reason she does not want it is irrelevant. Either it is wrong to kill the unborn, or it is not. If it is not wrong, then women she be able to kill their babies for any reason they see fit.
[1]David Harsanyi, “Abortion Debate Changing”; available from http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12454493; Internet; accessed 29 May 2009.
Thinking to Believe 
June 5, 2009 at 2:26 pm
What’s the difference between aborting her baby because she won’t be able to finish school, and aborting her baby so she can fit into her prom dress? … Either it is wrong to kill the unborn, or it is not. If it is not wrong, then women she be able to kill their babies for any reason they see fit.
There are two aspects: moral and legal.
Morally, the reasons for the abortion are relevant. The question is whether the life of the fetus has more value than the burden caused to the mother’s life. Many people would say that the burden of delaying college for a year outweighs the rights of the unborn, but fitting into a prom dress does not.
I think you may be assuming that pro-choice Americans approve of non-sex-selection abortions. Generally speaking, they want abortion to be legal but not to happen, to be “safe, legal and rare.” So they would disapprove of abortion in virtually all circumstances, but think it should be legal.
But those who do support abortion for “convenience” but do not support sex-selection abortions should explain their reasoning.
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Arthur,
I agree, in principle, that the reason for the abortion can be morally relevant. For example, if one aborts a baby to save the mother’s life, I think this is morally permissible. If one aborts their baby for elective reasons, however, it is not.
But if the unborn are not valuable human beings who bear rights, I don’t see why one reason for an elective abortion should be viewed as morally superior to another. If the unborn are not human beings, but mere valueless tissue, then why should it matter why the woman elects to have an abortion? Do we say a woman who wants to have liposuction because she thinks she is fat has more moral justification for the procedure than a woman who wants to have liposuction simply because her sister had it done (even though she doesn’t see herself as fat)? No. We don’t even think of it in terms of moral categories, because what is being removed (fat) has no moral value.
As Greg Koukl says, “If the unborn are not human beings, then no justification for abortion is necessary; but if the unborn are human beings, no justification is adequate.” If the unborn are like body fat, then we should be able to remove them for any reason, even if for cosmetic reasons (like the girl who wants to fit in her prom dress).
Actually, no, I am not assuming that. As I said, about 85% of Americans oppose sex-selection abortions, and yet nearly 50% of Americans are pro-choice. Only a small minority of pro-choicers think sex-selection abortions are morally acceptable. In fact, it is my recognition of this that prompts this post. My point is that their opposition to sex-selection abortion is in conflict with their pro-choice views. So is the view that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” The only reason to think it should be rare is because there is something not right about it. After all, no one says they think liposuction should be safe, legal, and rare. We don’t care how much fat people want sucked out of their bodies, because we recognize that it has no moral value. The only reason to want abortion to be rare is because we recognize that abortion is wrong, but don’t want to admit it and/or don’t want to make it illegal.
Jason
LikeLike
June 6, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Jason,
As Greg Koukl says, “If the unborn are not [persons], then no justification for abortion is necessary; but if the unborn are [persons], no justification is adequate.”
(I’ve changed “human beings” to “persons” to avoid confusion, and I’ll ignore questions involving the mother’s life.)
Although I agree that there is a point at which personhood begins (or might begin), and that we should protect life from that point forward, I don’t think everybody agrees with that. Many people believe that a fetus, at least earlier in the pregnancy, is something like a dog – it’s life has value, but not the same level of value as an adult human being.
“In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings or fur is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He argues that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain more than their intelligence. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
That so many people put the lives of animals ahead of the unborn makes sense when you understand the basis for their beliefs.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Biology and value are two different things. What makes us human is a biological question. What makes us valuable–at any stage in our life–is a philosophical and theological question.
Personhood is usually construed by pro-choicers as that which gives human beings value. Some think there are such things as “human non-persons” and “human persons,” and think the unborn are “human non-persons.” Since value only resides in personhood, they argue, the unborn can be killed without moral consequence.
While I understand this line of reasoning, the question is whether or not it is true. I think there are good reasons for believing it to be false, and good reasons to conclude that the “functional personhood” view of abortion-choicers is logically and practically untenable. Personhood is something that inheres within human beings; it is the kind of beings we are, even if we are not currently exercising our personal capacities. All human beings are persons from conception onward.
Jason
LikeLike