Magical Thinking - The Abortion Controversy
To begin with, a full disclosure. My wife and I have two daughters, both adopted. They are grown now, with children of their own. One grandchild, the oldest, is a fine horsewoman and a Registered Nurse at a local hospital, from all indications an exceptional one. She will undoubtedly at times in her career be instrumental in saving lives. We take pride in the knowledge that our family consists of decent, productive--or potentially so-members of society. The kicker is that when we look with loving eyes on our girls and their families, we cannot help but think that had it been a few decades later, these two wonderful kids might well have never been permitted to live.
Magical thinking, simply defined, is the idea that the real world is what we want it to be, not what it is. The abortion controversy abounds with magical thinking. Prevailing pro-choice philosophy is that if a pregnant woman wants her unborn child, then it is a human being subject to the full protection of the law. However, if she does not want it, then it consists merely of "an undifferentiated mass of cells" that can legally be aborted. This is a perfect example of magical thinking.
In fact, the philosophical guru of the pro-choice community, Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, asserts that a child should be subject to killing after birth, should it prove to be defective. According to Singer, "... killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." (Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993)
In most societies, killing a human being is a major crime subject to severe punishment. The salient issue in the abortion controversy, then, must of necessity be the "humanity" of the fetus or embryo. Certainly, the delivered fetus, now an infant, is a living, breathing human being, Prof. Singer notwithstanding. The question is what is it before birth? A common argument is the lack of "viability" of the fetus, its inability to survive outside the womb. Supposedly, if it is not viable, then it is not a protected human being.
The problem with this is that abortion is technically legal at any time in the pregnancy, although many states restrict third trimester abortions. Babies born prematurely often survive-are viable-any time after the 23rd week, near the end of the second trimester. Also, we do not refer to adults with impaired breathing requiring oxygen to survive, or other life support, as not being "viable". At least not yet.
So, what do we have with a developing child in the womb? Is it human and is it alive? If so, then we are on dangerous ground indeed when we authorize killing it. There is little question that at some point the developing fetus is alive and if it is not human, then what is it? Let us try to define that point, a problem that has occupied philosophers and ethicists throughout history.
Some religious folks assert that the developing embryo/fetus becomes a human being when it receives a soul. Scripture tells us that, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;" (NIV-Jeremiah 1:5) Sounds like God assigns souls pretty early in the game.
Well, how about the scientific approach, medical or biological? Let's take a look at the human reproductive process. I will dispense with the preliminaries and start with the little buggers that get the whole thing started. They're called gametes-the sperm and egg (ovum). The gametes get together and create a zygote, a fertilized egg. The zygote implants in the uterus, at which time it becomes a blastocyst, but still has not started the process of cell division. When cell division starts, the blastocyst becomes an embryo. This process takes 3-4 days.
At 4 weeks, the embryo has recognizable human features like a spine, brain, rudimentary eyes and ears, heart and liver. (See Fig. 1)
Fig. 1 - Embryo at 23 days
At 6 weeks, it is about ½ inch long and has a recognizable head, jaw and external ears. At 8 weeks (2 months) it is now designated a fetus and has a face with eyes and ears, a nose with nostrils, limbs with joints, hands and feet with fingers and toes, genitalia and all internal organs. Movement begins. (See Figs. 2,3)
Fig. 2 - Embryo (hands) at 7 weeks Fig. 3 - Embryo at 6 weeks
At 3 months, the end of the first trimester, the fetus is clearly recognizable as a human being. Early in the second trimester at 18 weeks, the face is fully developed. (See Fig 4)
Fig. 4 - Fetus at 18 weeks
At 5 months, the fetus has hair and begins kicking Mom in the stomach. At 6 months it has eyebrows and eyelashes and at 7 months the eyes open. The rest of the time until the normal end of gestation at 9 months is spent growing and in lung development, one of the last things to be completed.
O.K., when in this process do we have a living human being? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. This is a seamless process of development from blastocyst to birth. Is it possible that at some point very early in the process we have that "undifferentiated mass of cells?" I guess it's possible, but to me there is no clear-cut onset of "human-ness". Aye, there's the rub.
Abortion has been compared to capital punishment. I have commented on this in a previous post. However, we in this society bend over backwards to insure that we are executing a truly guilty malefactor, according multiple years of appeals and re-examinations until every vestige of doubt is eliminated. Better several guilty go free rather than one innocent be executed. It seems to me that the same policy should be applied to the unborn infant.
If we cannot with absolute certainty assign a point in the fetal development process where human life initiates, then by the principle of the condemned, we must err on the side of life. The only safe policy is to assume that life begins at conception, i.e. the zygote or at least the embryonic stage 3-4 days after fertilization.
The process of magical thinking that permeates the abortion controversy never ceases to amaze me. I find it hard to believe that it's all about "choice" or the mental health of the mother. I find it hard to ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood typically charges $400 for an abortion, a very lucrative business for them.
The mother's health is often cited as an issue justifying aborting a fetus. The problem is that this is a very broad, often subjective category, covering everything from emotional health to life-threatening conditions. In the case of the latter, where there is a clear medical "Hobson's choice" between the life of the mother and her baby, historically the life of the mother takes precedence. I see no problem with this. I do see a problem with the mother's emotional or mental health being used to justify an abortion, even the grotesque "partial birth" procedure.
Another issue often raised is the mother's right to make choices concerning her own body. First, in civilized society our choices are often restricted. For example, we cannot choose to kill someone who offends us. The embryo/fetus is not an integral part of the mother's body, like a kidney. It resides therein being provided sustenance and shelter, connected only temporarily to her for less than a year. (Please, I'm not minimizing the marvelous process of pregnancy and the huge contribution of Mom to the miracle of a new life.) This does not convey the power of life or death over a unique human being.
One last point. The question of rape or incest has been raised to justify abortion. This ignores the rights of the human unborn child in favor of the interests of the woman victim. Incest, a disgustingly reprehensible and illegal act, does not pose a great genetic risk unless practiced over time and generations. Thus, a baby is not at significant risk if conceived due to an isolated incestuous act. Rape, a vile and vicious crime, may result in an extremely unwanted pregnancy. This is fully understandable, but again has nothing to do with the right of the fetus to survive. In both of these cases, adoption is a viable alternative. Nine months of discomfort and modest restriction would seem to be a small price to pay for a human life.
I do not expect this essay to change many minds. Magical thinking today is so prevalent on so many issues, it would take more than my poor effort to make a substantial dent. The issue of abortion is one not exclusively of religion, morality or politics, although these are certainly factors. To me, it is simply a matter of logic and honest realism, in the primary context of humanity.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.










11 Comments
Jeff Blackwell - Oct 26, 2008 8:51 AM
But, what about "the little buggers that get the whole thing started. They're called gametes-the sperm and egg (ovum)." Aren't they the REAL beginning of a human life?
Do you also oppose contraception, Al? Do you oppose menstruation?
Is it a moral imperative that every egg and every sperm be "allowed" to create a human being?
Victor Ponelis - Oct 26, 2008 9:35 PM
aneuhauser - Oct 27, 2008 2:34 AM
Victor: Sam Harris is a polarizing and controversial atheist author. He is entitled to his opinions concerning the dangers inherent in organized religions, all except Hinduism and Buddhism which he seems to like. His attitude concerning torture is particularly odd. I am not a fan of "overthinkers" like him and Peter Singer. They give me a headache.
You seem to acknowledge that abortion is killing a developing human being, even at the embryonic stage. In civilized society, killing a human being other than in self defense is murder. The fact that it is done by a pregnant woman is immaterial. Incidently, I did not use that term because I believe that a mother who aborts her child is misguided, having been indoctrinated in magical thinking by the pro-abortion crowd.
Roe v. Wade may be the most overstretched Constitutional interpretation in the history of the Supreme Court. Even "Roe" has recanted and become a vocal critic.
Miscarriage usually occurs as a result of improper implantation. This is a natural occurrence which I do not believe is God's fault. The poor Guy gets blamed for a lot of stuff that just happens. Sam Harris and many other folks seem to argue that God should be considered to be responsible for everything that occurs, good and bad. I personally believe that He lets nature take its course and seldom interferes, only when it really matters.
I deliberately did not dwell on the issue of the baby's soul, except to debunk the argument that there is a point in gestation when it enters the body. I have my own opinion about the souls of babies--born or unborn--who die, which does not totally agree with some fundamentalist religious dogma. Since we have no idea what the soul is, a discussion of its nature seems pointless.
Thanks for your usual thoughtful commentary.
Victor Ponelis - Oct 27, 2008 7:25 AM
Ellen Cherry Charles - Oct 27, 2008 9:41 AM
An unborn child is only a "collection of cells" for a very short time (a couple weeks or less), but it is still a human. If it has a spinal cord and rudimentary brain, then it can feel pain (basic biology, folks).
A pregnant woman is already giving up a lot of freedoms, so the issue of "choice" or designating them as "second class citizens" is naive. A pregnant woman does not have the freedom to eat or ingest whatever she wants (she can, but she shouldn't), she doesn't have freedom of movement (especially in the later months when she can't even put her own socks and shoes on!), and she doesn't have freedom from pain and discomfort. A pregnant woman is leasing her body to someone else for nine months. Just like a property owner leasing an apartment to a renter, the renter has rights too.
My solution to the abortion issue is to try and prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible through widespread contraception education. Abstinence only education is a proven failed policy, not to mention incredibly stupid (telling teens with raging hormones to just "not have sex"? Yeah right). Birth control should be cheap, accessible, and free from stigma.
As for pregnancies as a result of rape or incest, Al is right that nine months of discomfort is a small price to pay for a life. There are so many people who can't have children who would love to adopt, but the process is so complicated and expensive that it's very often discouraging. Make it simpler and cheaper, and perhaps the rise in demand will lead to a rise in supply.
paul nolan - Oct 27, 2008 11:36 AM
referee33 - Oct 28, 2008 1:48 PM
Che Otto - Oct 28, 2008 3:24 PM
aneuhauser - Nov 02, 2008 4:59 PM
Victor: Dictionary definition of "penumbra' (No.3): "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution." I'm a bit nervous about interpreting the Constitution "by implication." What, are the Justices reading the founders' minds posthumously? This is a legal slippery slope indeed.
Ellen: Very insightful comment by a authoritative source. Thank you.
Paul: It so happens that our fertility problems were mutual, so your disgustingly vile suggestion would not have worked. Certainly rape and incest are horrendous experiences for the victims, but ending the life of the unborn child only compounds the tragedy. The real villian is the rapist, not the innocent child.
I'm appalled at the nasty tone of your comments, Paul. Although we are not acquainted, I hope they don't characterize you.
"Referee33": I have no problem with the "morning after" pill. I believe life begins with cell division. My essential point is that, as moral human beings, we should err on the side of life rather than equivocate about mental or emotional health. Thanks for your usual rational comment.
David: I believe the issue is that if we are dealing with a human life, and I believe we are, then we, man or woman, do not have the right to terminate it. That's not only ethics and morality, that's the basis of our laws, or should be.
referee33 - Nov 02, 2008 8:22 PM
Ellen Cherry Charles - Nov 07, 2008 3:01 PM
What I meant about adoption is that if it was easier to adopt, then perhaps a pregnant rape victim would be more likely to bring the baby to term if she knew that thousands of couples were waiting in line to be that baby's parents. I can see how my previous post came off weird. The morning after pill is also an excellent idea, but I don't know how that would work with incest. Again, I don't have definitive answers on this front because I can't speak from experience. All I'm sure of is that life is precious and there's no way to determine whose life, the mother or the baby's, takes precedent.
As an added note, I truly believe (without scientific data, of course) that most abortions are the result of consensual, irresponsible sex. If contraception was cheap (or even free) and widely available, the abortion rate would go way down. Conservatives need to hop on the condom/pill bandwagon and leave the abstinence cart in the ditch where it belongs.