Mary Elizabeth Williams recently wrote at Salon that
when we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? … It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina. That distinction may apply neatly legally, but philosophically, surely we can do better.
If you are cheering on Ms. Williams as an articulate pro-life apologist, you would be mistaken. She is a card-carrying member in the pro-abortion cause. What makes her rather unique among her peers is that she admits “life begins at conception,” and yet also fully supports a woman’s right to kill that human being because “all life is not equal.”
She reasons that being human does not automatically entitle one to a right to life. After all, we kill human beings in war and execute criminals.[1] Since there are circumstances in which it is morally justifiable to kill other human beings, why think fetuses cannot be killed merely because they are human? According to Williams, “[A] fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
There is much to commend, and much to lament in this article. I commend Williams for pointing out the philosophical absurdities with the claim that the unborn are not human. I also agree with her that being human does not guarantee one’s right to life. There are circumstances in which bona fide human beings can be killed with moral justification. It is morally permissible to kill soldiers in war to defend oneself from being killed or subjected to tyranny, and it is morally permissible to kill murderers because they have unjustly deprived another human being of his life. The question remains, however, as to why we should think that killing the unborn for the reasons pro-abortion advocates offer is morally justified. What has the unborn done to deserve death? We generally agree that human beings have a right to life unless they do something to forfeit that right. What has the unborn done to forfeit his right to life? Nothing. It seems to me that Williams is confusing the innocent (unborn) for the guilty (foreign armies, murderers). We are justified in killing humans who are guilty of great moral crimes, but there is no moral justification for intentionally killing innocent human beings.
Intellectual honesty demands that a pro-abortion advocate take a position similar to Ms. Williams’. There is no getting around the humanity of the unborn. And once you concede that the unborn are full members of the human species, the only way to justify abortion is to argue that some humans are more valuable than others, and have rights that others do not have. Williams’ entire case for abortion rights rests on the flimsy foundation of bodily autonomy. That foundation, however, is not strong enough to hold up the edifice of elective abortion (see here and here).
Williams’ ended her article with these chilling words: “I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”
I can understand how those who are ignorant of embryology might fall prey to pro-abortion arguments, but I cannot help to be appalled by those who are fully cognizant of the humanity of the unborn, and yet still think they can be killed nonetheless. This is truly a hard-hearted generation in which personal autonomy and selfish desire are prized above the lives of other human beings. God help us.
[1]Interestingly, she also cites physician assisted suicide and the removal of life support as two other examples. In the case of PAS, the individual himself is determining to take his own life. While I do not think this is a moral act, this is a far cry from making the decision to take someone else’s life. Concerning the removal of life support, this is simply a matter of allowing someone to die naturally of their illness or disease. No one is intentionally bringing about the death of another person in some unnatural way. This is in stark contrast to abortion in which a doctor interferes with the natural development of the baby in order to bring about its death.
January 29, 2013 at 10:17 am
Thank you for at a well reasoned and evenly balanced reply to her article…be encouraged!
LikeLike
January 29, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Personally I think abortion is not right, not in every case but in most cases; nevertheless, I cannot make the decision to abort or not to abort a fetus in someone else’s life. It is not up to me and I certainly cannot determine penalties for that which I cannot control.
For me the reason is simple and clear why abortion is not right: every fetus is you; every fetus is me, before you were born, before I was born. To agree with killing the fetus is to agree with killing ourselves…………….. before we were born.
I cannot accept that for me nor can I accept that for any other fetus family member in the womb; my brother, my sister, my father, my mother, son, daughter, my best friend: Uh uh.
LikeLike
January 30, 2013 at 10:06 am
While there may be cases where medically the child needs to be “sacrificed” in order for the mother to survive, for the most part this is rare and I don’t think that was her point after I read entire article. Especially the quote where she said that if she was pregnant at 40, she would have the “World’s Greatest Abortion”.
Her main argument is total autonomy over the life of the unborn child. The motivation for this kind of spirit is pure selfishness which is a good reason why there should be laws to legislate against this. We cannot just do whatever we want just to please ourselves. We are adults and we all have responsibilities and commitments which we are held accountable in all facets of our lives. Even if unplanned or unexpected, it is the honorable thing to carry out a pregnancy to term. If we cannot or will not care for the child, the child can be adopted by someone who will. In doing this, women will be freed from condemnation and can live with a clear conscience. More than that, they can stand before God and be blameless for doing the right thing.
Naz
LikeLike
February 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Jason…as usual I agree with you on all points except war and the death penalty. To justify without caveat the killing of people for self-defense or to prevent tyranny is to radically over-simplify the realities of war (particularly the types of wars we’ve been fighting lately). What about innocent casualties? What about innocent people executed?
I pray that I am never placed in a situation to weigh another’s life against my own (or a bystander’s) because I deeply believe in the Lord’s sovereignty on this issue. My reasons for opposing abortion are the same as my reasons for opposing capital punishment. I will not willingly usurp God’s perogative on when a living being is destroyed.
Jesus talked about the Law allowing divorce, but then says “from the beginning it was not so” indicating that the pattern of marriage instituted from the beginning should prevail even over the Law. I then look at God’s own judgment on the first murderer Cain…and I wonder if that same concept might not apply here as well. Additionally…Peter was rebuked for taking up arms to defend Jesus’s life against a terrible injustice. Jesus did not say “No Peter…it is my time…you know…I have to do this”…no…rather he made a seemingly broadly applicable statement: “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”.
Add to this the concept of “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” and dash in a little understanding of all of us being under a sentence of death that Jesus himself commuted with His own blood.
You will never hear me utter the phrase “that man deserves death for his crimes”.
And for the record…I would feel this way even if our death penalty was perfect and without flaw. The fact that our death penalty is tarnished by racism, classism, and innocent blood makes my opposition to it inevitable.
LikeLike
February 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Leonardo,
Personally I think slavery is not right, not in every case but in most cases; nevertheless, I cannot make the decision to own a slave or not to own a slave in someone else’s life. It is not up to me and I certainly cannot determine penalties for that which I cannot control.
Those are your words with “abortion” being replaced by “slavery.” If you don’t agree with the reworked paragraph, can you tell me how abortion differs from slavery?
As for the rest of what you said, I agree with you. Since personal identity remains the same throughout existence, there is no moral difference between killing a human in the adult stage of life and killing a human in the embryonic or fetal stage of life. But given your rationale, why would you think it should be legal for people to kill their unborn children? If it shouldn’t be legal for them to kill their born children, and their unborn children are the same children (but just younger), then why should it be legal for anyone to kill their unborn children?
Jason
LikeLike
February 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Naz, I agree completely.
LikeLike
February 1, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Richard,
I’m glad we walk arm-in-arm on the matter of abortion.
As for capital punishment and war, I don’t want to turn this thread, which is about abortion, into a thread about those other topics. But I do want to say a few things.
When it comes to capital punishment, it can’t be a matter of usurping God’s prerogative on when a human is killed because God commanded humans to exercise capital punishment. You cannot usurp an authority given to you. While one may oppose the way that capital punishment is handled, I don’t see how one could oppose capital punishment qua capital punishment.
As for judgment, Jesus was not advocating non-judgmentalism, but non-hypocritical judgments. Notice that he said after one has removed the log from their own eye, then they can remove the speck from their brother’s eye. The problem was not that they were saying others were wrong, but that they were guilty of the same things and worse but refused to repent over their own sins.
Also, given your rationale, not only should we proscribe the death penalty, but all punishment. Forgiveness on a personal level does not entail that there are not appropriate punishments on the social level that still apply. Jesus’ ethics apply to how we as individuals are to treat others; not how nations are to interact with other nations. Indeed, Paul himself taught that the role of government is to reward the good and punish the evildoers.
Jason
LikeLike
February 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Jason,
Your reasoning is sound…I just disagree with your conclusion. Despite this…I still have great respect for you and what you do. Your explanation of the oneness of God and the incarnation is the best I have read. Thanks for all of the great articles and posts.
LikeLike
February 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Richard,
If my reasoning is sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows. My conclusions can only be mistaken if my reasoning is flawed.
I’m glad, however, that despite any differences we may have on this issue, that you still respect me for my contributions on other matters. That is a mark of wisdom and spiritual maturity. Truly we don’t have to agree on all things to agree on some things and call each other “brother.”
Jason
LikeLike
February 11, 2013 at 11:00 am
Jason,
One’s reasoning could be perceived to be sound without the conclusion necessarily following if one’s reasoning is based on a different principle assertion. If I were an atheist, I might be able to see the quality of your reasoning based on the initial assertion that the Bible is the word of God…but I might not agree with the premise, therefore I would disagree with your conclusion. Since you and I both recognize the Bible as the inspired word of God, we do not have that particular problem…but we may operate under a different hermeneutic principle (likely very slight).
Sincerely,
Richard
LikeLike