Dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice supporters is almost non-existent.
Even face-to-face debating is rare.
One reason is the lack of consensus on the precise timing
of the beginning of human personhood. That is, when during pregnancy does a new human being exist
with full civil rights -- including is the most important right of all: the
right to live?
Concerning personhood:
Some say that it begins at conception;
A few say it only begins when the newborn is separate from her/his
mother and breathing on its own.
Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University, believes that
personhood only comes weeks after birth.
Many others point to a time after conception but before birth.
Another reason for the lack of dialogue is that supporters of the various belief systems assign
different meanings to common words, such as life, human life, pregnancy, human
personhood, baby, child, unborn, etc.
And so, the conflict continues. There is little hope of resolution because of the
fundamental disagreements between the two sides.
Some say that having an abortion under a
specific set of circumstances is immoral.
Others say that preventing a
woman from having an abortion under those identical circumstances is immoral.
Don't look for harmony soon.
What the pro-life and pro-choice movements agree on:
The media, religious leaders, and others often emphasize uncompromising
conflicts between pro-life and pro-choice
groups. This is often reflected in their terminology:
Many pro-life supporters refer to abortion as the murder of an unborn child. Some equate abortion to the Nazi Holocaust.
They associate abortion clinics with Nazi
death camps such as Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen.
Many pro-choicers refer to a pre-embryo or embryo as "products of conception"
or as a simple blob of tissue.
In reality, there is broad agreement by the two opposing sides:
A common belief among pro-lifers and pro-choicers is that
an ovum is alive. Thus, because it contains human DNA, they consider it to be a form of human
life. According to most scientists, an ovum is not actually alive. But the
belief dies hard.
An ovum is not considered a human person.
Similarly a spermatozoon is considered a form of human life by many,
but not by most scientists.
A spermatozoon is not viewed to be a human person.
There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or
pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life.
The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four
criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction." 1
Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about one in 250 births,
when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up
to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.
An embryo is also a form of human life.
A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.
A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person.
During the entire nine months between:
The meeting of an ovum and one very lucky spermatozoon at conception, and
The birth of a newborn baby,
human life has continuously existed.
Pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe that at conception, or at birth, or at some time in between, human personhood began.
The new person has rights including the right to continue to live.
After human personhood is present, both sides agree that an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances, such as:
To save the life of the woman,
Perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury or permanent disability to the woman,
Perhaps if the pregnancy had been initiated by rape or incest.
What the pro-life and pro-choice movements disagree on:
The major differences between pro-lifers and pro-choicers can be expressed as three questions:
"When does human personhood begin?"
Most pro-lifers believe it happens at conception because that is when a
unique DNA first appears.
Some believe it happens very shortly after conception when the ovum first divides
and becomes a pair of cells. This is the first evidence that the pre-embryo is
truly alive.
A case has been made, based on a biblical theme, that personhood begins
when blood first appears in the pre-embryo at perhaps 18 days after conception.
Most pro-choicers say that personhood happens later in pregnancy. Some
say that it happens:
When the embryo loses its tail and looks vaguely human;
When the fetus' face begins to look fully human;
After 21 weeks gestation, a limit imposed by many state & provincial
medical associated;
When the fetus is viable -- able to survive outside its mother's
body with current medical technology;
At about 26 weeks, when the fetal brain's higher functions are first
activated and the fetus attains consciousness;
When the fetus half-emerges from is/her mother's body. This is a
Jewish teaching.
At birth, when the fetus becomes apart from her/his mother -- a
newborn.
When the newborn's umbilical cord is cut and she or he is
breathing as an independent, separate person;.
etc.
Some Aboriginal people worldwide believe that the newborn only becomes a human person when
he or she is named.
As noted above, Peter Singer believes that personhood is only
established weeks after birth.
"After personhood has begun, under which conditions is an abortion a moral choice?"
The Roman Catholic church teaches that an abortion at any stage of pregnancy can never be a moral choice, unless it happens as an unintended side-effect of a
medical procedure that is required to save the life of a pregnant woman -- e.g. removal of uterine cancer or termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
A small minority believe that an abortion is never a moral choice, even to save the life of the woman.
Continuing pregnancy should be enforced by the state even if it results in
the death of the woman and child.
Some would limit abortions to cases where it was needed to avoid a threat to
the woman's life.
Some would also allow abortions in cases where the woman's health was
very seriously at risk and/or the risk of permanent disability
was high.
Some would allow abortions in cases where conception occurred after a rape or
as a result of an incestuous relationship.
Some assert that a woman has the right to an abortion, even though the
fetus she is carrying is perceived to be a human person.
"How do we proceed if we cannot agree about when personhood begins?"
It appears impossible for religious leaders, philosophers, the medical
profession and the rest of the public to reach a consensus about when personhood
begins. How then should we proceed? What limitations,
if any, should the state place on a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy? If
a woman, after consultation with her physician and perhaps with her spiritual
adviser, decides that her least worse option is to have an abortion, then when
should the state intrude and deny her that option?
Most pro-lifers would probably agree that if we are unsure, we
should err on the side of life. A visitor to this web site wrote:
"If we are killing 3000 fetuses a day that at least have the
possibility of being human persons, shouldn’t we protect them just
to be sure? If a hunter sees something moving in a bush, he just
doesn’t shoot it because it sounds like it could be a deer. He makes
absolutely sure it is a deer before he kills it. Just like we should
be absolutely sure that human fetuses are not human persons
deserving all rights in society before we kill them. Since we
probably will never be absolutely sure, we should not allow any
fetuses to be killed. What if society is wrong and they are in fact
human persons deserving all rights in society. Then we would have to
accept that we have killed off over 43 million people."
Most pro-choicers might agree that the alternative to abortion
access is enforced childbirth for every pregnant woman. Forcing her
to continue an unwanted pregnancy to childbirth is an unwarranted
intrusion into the private life of a woman, particularly for those
who believe that they are carrying only a potential human life and
not an actual human life.
Some would suggest that since no consensus exists about abortion
access that we should allow women to make up their own minds about
whether to terminate their pregnancy or not. They might argue that a
woman's right to control her body and her fertility trumps any
consideration of the continued life of the fetus.
Others suggest that even small embryos have souls and are thus
full human beings. Abortion is thus murder and should be totally
banned or at least severely restricted.
Many persons who are theists -- they believe in a personal God
-- would suggest that we simply assess the will of God through
prayer. Unfortunately, pro-lifers and pro-choicers have attempted
this and have conflicting beliefs about God's response. From a pilot
study that we have completed, assessing
the will of God does not seem to be a viable option.
As more countries in the world allow women to have at least early abortions
if they wish, and as the cost of inter-state and international travel drops, the
question is becoming less important for many women. A local law forbidding elective abortions can be overcome if the
woman simply adds the cost of an airfare to a state or country with more liberal
abortion laws -- or none as in the case of Canada.
