Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights
Part Two: Arguments from Pity, Tolerance, and Ad Hominem
by Francis J. Beckwith
In the first installment of this four-part series we examined a number of
arguments for abortion rights which can be classified as appeals to pity.
In this article I will present and critique more appeals to pity, along with
two additional kinds of argument: appeals to tolerance and ad hominem
(literally, "against the person"). Of course, not every defender of abortion
rights holds to all or any of the arguments presented in this article. But
the truth of the matter is that a vast majority do defend at least some of
these arguments. For this reason, the following critique should prove
helpful to those interested in providing reasoned answers, rather than
inflammatory rhetoric, to the arguments put forth by the abortion rights
movement.
ARGUMENTS FROM PITY
Argument from Rape and Incest
A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is
the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although
pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare,[1] there is
no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances.
Bioethicist Andrew Varga summarizes the argument from rape and incest
in the following way:
It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental
health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or
incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a
pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice
and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to
viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the
violence committed against her and would just increase her mental
anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health
is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained
that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman's integrity and
personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an
aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend
personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is
justified in these cases.[2]
Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are several problems
with this argument. First, it is not relevant to the case for abortion on
demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This
position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any
reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it
be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape.[3] To argue for abortion on
demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for
the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate
some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child
needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not
establish a general rule.
Second, since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse,
pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives
immediate medical treatment by having all the male semen removed from
her uterus.[4]
Third, the unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not
endanger its mother's life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the
rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent
victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that
the unborn is an aggressor.
Fourth, this argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is
not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the
relieving of the woman's mental suffering against the right-to-life of an
innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to
relieve one of emotional distress. Although such a judgment is indeed
anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that
the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a
job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn
entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for
career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human,
abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases
abortion results in the death of an innocent human life. As Dr. Bernard
Nathanson has written, "The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from
the sexual act, but not morally from it."[5] Hence, this argument, like the
ones we have already covered in this series, is successful only if the
unborn are not fully human.
Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since
the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby
against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist
who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The
pro-life advocate merely wants to prevent another innocent human being
(the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally
reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right. As
theologian and ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman has observed: "A child does
not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a
sexual criminal or a deviant."[6]
Furthermore, the anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest
has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out
that "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper
support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes
about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is
innocent and uniquely worthwhile."[7] The pro-life advocate believes that
help should be given to the rape victim "to make it as easy as possible for
her to give up her baby for adoption, if she desires. Dealing with the
woman pregnant from rape, then, can be an opportunity for us -- both as
individuals and society -- to develop true understanding and charity. Is it
not better to try to develop these virtues than to countenance an ethic of
destruction as the solution?"[8]
Argument from the Unwanted Child
It is argued by many people in the pro-choice movement that legal
abortion helps eliminate unwanted children. They believe that unwanted
children are indirectly responsible for a great number of family problems,
such as child abuse. Hence, if a family can have the "correct" amount of
children at the "proper" times, then these family problems will be greatly
reduced, if not eliminated.[9] Once again, we find several serious
problems with the pro-choice argument.
First, the argument begs the question, because only by assuming that the
unborn are not fully human does this argument work. For if the unborn are
fully human, like the abused young children which we readily admit are
fully human, then to execute the unborn is the worst sort of child abuse
imaginable.
Second, it is very difficult to demonstrate that the moral and metaphysical
value of a human being is dependent on whether someone wants or cares
for that human being. For example, no one disputes that the homeless
have value even though they are for the most part unwanted. Now,
suppose the pro-choice advocate responds to this by saying, "But you are
treating the unborn as if they were as human as the homeless." This is
exactly my point. The question is not whether the unborn are wanted; the
question is whether the unborn are fully human.
Third, an unwanted child almost never turns out to be a resented baby.
This seems to be borne out statistically: (1) there is no solid evidence
that a child's being unwanted during pregnancy produces child abuse; (2)
according to one study, 90% of battered children were wanted
pregnancies;[10] and (3) some writers have argued that there is a higher
frequency of abuse among adopted children -- who were undoubtedly
wanted by their adoptee parents -- than among those who are
unadopted.[11] In his voluminous and scholarly study on the moral,
political, and constitutional aspects of the abortion issue, Professor Krason
summarizes his findings concerning the argument from unwantedness by
pointing out that "the factors causing child abuse cited most frequently by
the researches are not 'unwantedness,' but parents' lack of social support
from family, friends and community, hostility to them by society, based on
a disapproved sexual and social pattern of existence, and -- most
commonly -- their having been abused and neglected themselves when
they were children."[12]
Fourth, the unwantedness of children in general tells us a great deal about
our psychological and moral make-up as a people, but very little about the
value of the child involved. For it is only a self-centered, hedonistic people
who do not consider it their self-evident obligation to care for the most
vulnerable and defenseless members of the human race. A lack of caring is
a flaw in the one who ought to care, not in the person who ought to be
cared for. Hence, whether or not abortion is morally justified depends on
whether the unborn are fully human, not on their wantedness.
ARGUMENTS FROM TOLERANCE <