The Abortion debate.
I consider myself to be extremely liberal but I get very annoyed at those liberals who see those opposed to abortion as 'stone-aged', 'religious nuts' who just want to 'control women'. No doubt I have done so myself, but it is too easy to simply regard a viewpoint with which we disagree, as being wrong, 'just because', to assign to those who hold such views. motives that they do not actually possess.
There is too much emotion and not enough thought, from both sides. There is also too much assumption that issues are self evident. Such self evident concepts have a habit of not actually being self evident at all. Emotion can get in the way of rational thought. It is also possible to fall into many logical traps when considering others. Our prior assumptions lead to false conclusions about the actions and beliefs of others. An example is the 'No true Scotsman' logical flaw in which a conclusion is drawn, based on a false premise and any person providing counter evidence is taken to not be that which they claim to be. The religious and non-religious alike fall into the same trap when ascribing beliefs to others.
The idea that only the old fashioned, religious (and by extension 'irrational') oppose absolute freedom of choice, is logically false. It is perfectly possible to argue against abortion from logical statements and conclusions that draw nothing from religion. The argument that those who want to control abortion want to control women is another logically false belief. The argument is that controlling abortion would, in some ways, control women and so therefore, anyone who would limit abortion wants to control women. That is simply wrong. It is an unfortunate accident of biology for advanced life on Earth, that we have two sexes and only one of them can get pregnant. Abortion impacts pregnancy and therefore only directly impacts women. That is unfortunate, but not the aim of those who believe that abortion is not an automatic right.
Then there are those who fall back on "I just think". That is no argument. Neither is "I don't like where a particular line of reasoning goes and so that is just ridiculous or untrue". Reality doesn't care about your opinions. Opinions not based on fact are not based on reality. We can't argue for some things, such as being gay being natural, based on logic and fact, and then deny logic and fact that supports something we do not like.
There are those who would argue that it is not my business, doesn't affect me and so I shouldn't have an opinion. Well, my children are well fed, should the problem of hungry children in the US not be any of my business? It doesn't affect me. Neither does war and abuse of civilians in far off lands. Not my business again? We all comment on things that we believe need to be discussed rather than simply accepted.
Autonomy.
"Her body, her choice" is a statement often made, as if that is the absolute determining factor and others, particularly men, have no input. A counter would be that her choice implies her responsibility. If men have no say in whether a woman decides to continue with a pregnancy or not then, in the case of a woman deciding to continue a pregnancy a man does not want, why does he have responsibility to support her and the baby? Just because? Because he should accept his obligations and responsibilities? What do those concepts mean? Because he chose to have sex? In the majority of cases, so did the woman. If a man can be forced to devote two decades of his life to the support of a child then, logically, why can a woman not be forced to carry a child for just nine months? Because it is inconvenient? Because it is costly? The case of a father who agrees to the birth of a child and then fails to support it is different. But what of a man who did not want the child. Terrible for the child, yes, but it is probably more expensive to support a child for two decades, and he might prefer to use the money for other things, so he is more inconvenienced, than the mother who is only limited for part of a nine month pregnancy. Now, I absolutely believe that a man should support his children but the principle is: it isn't simply a matter of her body, her choice and no one else has any input to the issue.
One of the main arguments against limiting abortion is that it curtails a woman's right to autonomy. That is, control over her own body. There is no doubt that being pregnant places limitations on a woman. However, we ALL have limitations placed on us. I can wave my fist around all I want. It is my fist, my body, but can I hit you in the face with it? No, my right to bodily autonomy ends when my use of my body impacts the rights of someone else.
The question of rights to autonomy then comes down to whether the right of a woman to her bodily autonomy impacts the rights of another person. In the case of those who are 'pro-life', the fetus is a person in their own right and their right to existence supersedes the right of the mother not to be inconvenienced. Now, some may object to the word 'inconvenience'. Yes, child birth poses some risk but, in Western societies that risk is largely minimal. If a pregnancy is a risk for a particular mother, then her right to existence would, indeed, supersede the right of the fetus to continued existence, particularly if she had other existing children.
Whether one agrees with the definition of a fetus as a person or not, one has to recognize that this is the key to the debate and not some archaic wish to simply control women. We have to be honest about the beliefs of those whose aims we oppose.
Personhood.
What is a person? Some argue that the definition of a person is obvious. People are people, cats and chairs are not. However, simply stating that what constitutes a person is obvious leads to a simple difference of opinion. Those for abortion argue that a fetus isn't a person but those against, argue that it is. And so we need a definition. But that is incredibly difficult.
Traditional definitions have argued that personhood applies to any entity that is self aware and appreciates it's place in the universe. Such an entity is capable of assigning meaning to the things and events in its environment. According to Descartes, Locke and Hume, a person is capable of framing representations about the world, drawing up plans about those representations and acting upon those plans,
Do any of these definitions apply to new born babies? Is a baby self aware? Is it capable of understanding the world around it? Is it capable of drawing upon its understanding and planning and executing actions to support itself? No? So, if not, is it a person? Is infanticide acceptable because the new born does not understand the world, its place in it, is totally dependent on others? What of the severely mentally disabled, the senile elderly, the comatose who is not aware of anything? Are these not people? Is it not the case that all of these are indeed people, simply because they are human beings? That being the case, what is the difference between a person before birth and one after?
It seems to me that those who argue a person born is fundamentally different to one unborn are hung up on a Western interpretation of the Bible, which states, primarily, that life begins with the first breath. That is ironic when those who favor unquestioning abortion argue that only the scientifically illiterate religious are anti-abortion.
Dependency
Some argue that the difference between a child born and one unborn is that the former can not support itself. To me it seems unreasonable to draw such a huge distinction between a baby who can not live without its mothers body and say a patient on a ventilator. There is no practical difference. If an unborn child can be killed because it can't survive alone then do we kill people on ventilators? We keep people on ventilators because they will become self sufficient? Well, so will an unborn child. There is no guarantee that an unborn child will survive until birth? There is no guarantee that patients on ventilators will ever recover. In fact, in the case of those with severe spinal injuries, it is guaranteed that they won't. The following sounds harsh and of course I would not condone it but: an unborn child has a good chance of being born and becoming an independent, contributing member of society. However, a person in a vegetative state - rather than simply 'locked in' - for years will probably never become aware , never contribute to society. Why don't we just kill them and save the inconvenient loss of resources? What of the severely mentally ill, whose existence is anguish for themselves? The severely mentally diminished elderly Alzheimer's patient may have zero knowledge of where they are, who the people around them are, may not be able to feed and care for themselves. would we consider euthanizing them? If we rightly regard all these individuals as retaining their humanity, simply by being a member of the human species, whether they are aware or independent, or not, then why not unborn children? What is the big difference between the two?
Rationally, there is no difference between a baby unborn, a newborn, and the above listed cases. It makes no sense to insist that one is human, a person, and the other is not. If an unborn baby is not a person then are prospective parents irrational in becoming attached to a non-person? Few people would argue so. It seems bizarre that both the UK and US have laws that punish those who harm the unborn (The US Unborn victims of Violence Act and the UK Child Destruction Laws) but specifically have to mention that they do not apply to abortion. Upon what basis does an unborn child have any legal protection, if it is not a person? If it does have legal protection then why can it be aborted? The distinction appears to be the wishes of the parents. The law, rightly, protects the life of the unborn where the mother wants the child but does not protect the child if the mother wants to abort it. The issue is bizarrely emotional. Every right thinking person is outraged if a thug punches a woman in the stomach to kill her baby. To the common people, the outrage does not appear to be that of 'poor woman' but 'a monster killed a baby'. But, simply because the woman wishes not to have the child, a doctor can perform an abortion. Shroedinger's baby: simultaneously a person and not a person.
The 'Abortion is natural' argument
One of the most bizarre arguments that I have seen is that attributed to Bill Nye - the Science Guy'. It goes along the lines of 'every day millions of babies die in the womb and are naturally aborted'. Consequently, it does not matter that we kill some extra. Just because something is done by blind natural processes does not mean that we sentient human beings should be the same thing. Hundreds of thousands of people die of natural causes every month. Should we kill people simply because nature does? Of course not! We are aware of our actions and their consequences. We can not excuse something because nature does it.
Conclusion
I believe that there are many cases in which abortion is entirely justified: Rape, medical necessity. However, I can not agree with abortion simply for convenience. I also do not believe that a woman's voice is the only one to be heard. It is a far more complex issue than that and not for patriarchal reasons but those listed above.
