It is interesting to note how progressive ideas are based upon abstractions. From micro aggressions, to cultural appropriation, equality, inclusion, etc., much progressive discourse involves concepts that are poorly defined, infused with unresolvable subjectivity, and that change from time to time and context to context. Occasionally however this penchant for abstractions wanders into realms where the abstractions conflict with actual experience and with reality. One such area is abortion.
The idea of abortion is much easier to accept when the conceptus is microscopic and has not yet developed outward characteristics of a human being. The description of an embryo as a "clump of cells" makes the idea that it is a human life seem itself like an abstraction. However, this perspective becomes less reasonable as an embryo develops into a fetus, with a heartbeat and developing organs, fingers and a face. At some point, it becomes necessary to identify what allows discrimination between a fetus and other vulnerable humans worthy of protection and dignity, such as Jewish babies carried in their mother's arms to the gas chambers at Treblinka. Upon what basis do we distinguish the death of one as a private matter, and the death of the other is a crime against humanity? A more fundamental question would be why do we bother considering crimes against humanity at all?
The regard for human life is a characteristic of civilized societies. It is the basis of human dignity and the fundamental principle by which such things as genocide, inhumane treatment, torture, and rape are condemned. The regard for human life and human dignity is not merely a convention or cultural fad. There ares element of instinct, and natural human decency that predispose humans to be repulsed by atrocity. Even the Nazis realized the necessity of hiding their crimes. There is a reason why most humans have well-defined traits of empathy and sympathy. It is part if human nature to be disturbed by the suffering of another, even a stranger. It seems intuitive that there is some point in the development of a being that will naturally become a young human, at which is worthy of the empathy and consideration of others. While some people have argued that the determining factor is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the mother's womb, others draw the line when the baby draws its first breath, and others have proposed that it is the point at which the fetus can feel pain. There is no universally accepted discriminant that settles the point. There is however no reasonable argument that no such point exists.
It is instructive to note that other forms of suffering evoke human feelings of empathy and cause distress to those who witness them. One circumstance that seems quite potent in eliciting empathy and sympathy is the idea of a creature, whether an animal or human, struggling to survive. Struggle resonates emotionally with healthy humans. The idea of something fighting for its life is very effective at dispelling indifference to suffering. It does seems reasonable to feel for a fetus, a developing human, from the point that it is able to struggle in an attempt to live, even though its chances of survival are very small, and even though it struggles against powers that are trying to destroy it. This is the point when abortion has departed the realm of abstraction and begins to weigh on the conscience of decent people. There is no other way to describe the destruction of something struggling to survive as anything other than violence. Struggle is not an abstraction. Reality will not tolerate antiseptic and obfuscating language of "medical procedures," and "reproductive freedom." These latter phrases are used to try and perpetuate the idea that what started as an abstract argument regarding the humanity of an embryo should continue to be treated as such even though the beating heart and unmistakably human form belies that argument. This is why ultrasound images of the fetus can dissuade mothers contemplating abortion from that decision.
It should be an uncomfortable fact that an argument for aborting a fetus just before delivery, where it is capable of struggling against the violence that will end its life, could apply to allowing newborns to die, or allowing children to be euthanized if they become disabled by accident or disease. True believers will make such arguments invoking language such as "burdens," and "hardship." Such language is uncomfortable and disquieting because there is no intellectually honest way of distinguishing it from the notion of "leben unwerten leben," or life unworthy of life, a precept of Nazi inhumanity.
It is conceded that both sides of the abortion debate have good-faith beliefs in their positions. There are however extremists on both sides, and in the case of some pro-abortion activists they have become overly exuberant in trying to expand the boundaries of their interests. One would expect that extremists can be found who have no qualms about infanticide, just as there are extremists that have no qualms about genocide. Empathy and decency are not equally distributed among human beings. One can in good faith acknowledge the pro-choice perspective, even if one disagrees with it, and argue vehemently that a society that permits babies to be killed just before or as the are being born, has gone too far. We will always have Kermit Gosnells, and those who support them, just as we will always have inhumane, obsessive and psychopathic people. We are under no obligation to accord them a presumption of good faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment