A Dialogue Concerning Abortion
Alexander Blackstone (Nom de Plume)
Yesterday I attended a friend’s birthday party
and witnessed a fascinating discussion among friends. There, around a table
with beers and tapas, John met Charles and they began to chat
about their lives, the world and about South Dakota. The coming elections fell
into the subject of conversation and soon after the referendum concerning
abortion.
(1) Charles obviously regards John as a
sensible man, mindful of other people’s rights, because he looked surprised
when John stated that he supports the legalization of abortion because,
although he personally opposes it, he may not impose his opinion on other
people.
When Charles heard this, he was perplexed,
because that is precisely what all laws, and especially criminal laws, do, to
impose an opinion about what is right and wrong on all those who are subject to
the legislator. So, he just stated this point, which he thought would be plain
enough so as not to require further argument. But John replied that only the
people can do that, to impose a criminal law. Charles did not understand well
what he meant, and observed: “but, dear John, most of the laws are passed by legislators
that are not directly the people. Moreover, even if your statement were true,
precisely in the referendum you could join the majority of the people
and reject the proposed legalization of abortion. If the abortionist can impose
the legalization on us, well, why can’t we impose its rejection on them?”
But Charles decided not to get entangled on
that question, and proceeded to give some examples. “Let us suppose that a part
of the population thinks that handicapped born children should be killed or at
least it should be allowed to kill them; or that some dangerous ethnic minority
should be suppressed. Why are we allowed to impose our opinion on them by
establishing as a crime any instance of killing an innocent human being? As I
was saying in the beginning, every criminal law does just that. So, the argument
that I cannot impose my opinion on other people is just a non-argument, because
it just ignores the very nature of criminal law.”
(2) At this point, John pushed the discussion
on another direction. His objection was the following: “who can tell who the
innocent human beings are? You, pro-lifers support wars, and weapons and the
death penalty.” To this, Charles replied: “Oh, John, in discussions about
morality and law we have to avoid mixing everything up. For example: in a just
war the action of a soldier killing an enemy combatant is not murder, even if
the enemy has not been found guilty of any crime. Also, in case of legitimate
self defence, a person may kill the aggressor, even if the aggressor has not
been found guilty of any crime. One cannot discuss one moral issue by mixing it
with infinite different issues. But now
I will answer your concrete question: Exodus (23:7) teaches us: ‘do not
kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.’ This
means, nobody who has not been found guilty of a crime punishable with death
may be killed, except when the matter of the action changes its moral nature. So,
who determines whether a person is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’?, you ask. And the
answer is: ‘the competent judge or jury.’ This means that if the zygote or the
embryo or the fetus is a human being it is illicit to directly kill it,
because it is obvious that he or she has not committed any crime punishable by
human law with death.”
(3) While Charles was speaking, John became a
bit agitated. He shot two replies in one breath: “but then, what, the mother
has to die if the pregnancy is dangerous for her? And, are you so extreme that
you think that human life starts at conception?” Charles became uncomfortable
because he knew that this kind of discussion can get out of hand when one of
the participants starts to shoot epithets at the other. So, he first replied:
“My friend, John. We are reasoning together. So, we should give arguments. But
naming names is not an argument. Whether the zygote is a human being or not is
not a matter of being ‘extreme’ or ‘moderate,’ but an ontological matter that
must be established rationally. We will try to do that in a moment. But let us
first turn to the other issue, the danger for the mother’s life. Nobody in the
whole history of medicine has ever thought that indirectly killing a
zygote, embryo or fetus is an illicit action. That is why I used the word directly
earlier. What do I mean? I mean that if the mother has a true medical condition
that seriously threatens her life, such condition may be attended by the
doctors in the best way to prevent her death, even if they know that doing so
might (or even almost certainly will) cause the death of the zygote, embryo or
fetus. A common case that all doctors encounter is that of the ectopic
pregnancy. There is no moral doctrine that forbids removing the sick trump so
as to prevent the deadly bleeding of the mother, even if the embryo will die.
Some doctors wait as long as possible, just in case the embryo migrates, but
nobody holds that such removal is illicit. The reason is because the intent is
not to kill the baby, but to heal the mother. The death of the embryo is a
collateral damage. Other examples might be mothers with intermediate cancer who
cannot wait to be treated after all the months of pregnancy remaining. They may
choose to be treated, although they know that the baby will probably die. Of
course, there are mothers who choose to wait so that the baby can live, but
they are not obliged to do so.”
(4) “Regarding the other point, when life
begins, I would like to start by mentioning Peter Singer.” John, in hearing the
name, said: “Ah, I know, he is the defender of the animals’ rights.” To which
Charles replied: “so he claims, at least. He is also one of the most rational
apologists of the liceity of abortion. Well, according to him, it is absolutely
indefensible to claim that abortion does not kill innocent human beings. So,
the only way to defend that abortion is licit is to postulate that it is not always
illicit to kill an innocent human being.[1]
But that is a terrible statement. Do you agree with it?” To this, John replied:
“Oh, no, I do not agree with it! But why would it be indefensible that abortion
does not kill innocent human beings?” Charles continued: “That the non-born
cannot be guilty of a crime punishable with death by human authorities is
obvious. So, what we need to prove is that it is a human being. Life begins at
conception.” To this, John replied very excitedly: “Well, of course life exists
before conception! The sperm and the egg are alive!” “Oh, you are right, said
Charles, but they are not a new individual human being. They are just
reproductive cells of the parents. But if a sperm fertilizes the egg and is
fused to it to form a zygote, then, something marvelous begins. It is the
formation of a new individual of the human species.”
(5) “How is that,?” replied John. “Isn’t it
true that St. Aquinas held that human life started at week 12 of the pregnancy,
approximately?” “Oh, yes!”, interjected Charles. “You are right! But that was
so because he and Aristotle did not have the microscope. They did not know that
the woman is not passive in procreation, that she has a reproductive cell, the
egg, which is actually more important than the male’s procreation cell. And
they did not know that the zygote possesses a structure that is specifically
human. They thought that week 12 was the important mark because they were able
to see with their eyes all the specific parts of the organic human body. Today
we know that there are specific parts of an organic human body from conception
on, they are the parts specific to an embryonic human being, which possesses a
natural teleology towards maturity, towards becoming an adult totally
distinguished from the parents, and that is already totally distinct from them
in its genetic structure and in all the other aspects of its being. There is no
serious person today that denies that the moment in which the life of a new
human individual starts is conception.”
(6) To this John replied: “But there are
thousands of eggs and sperms that are lost and also many zygotes without the mom even noticing. So,
the world would be a very cruel place.” Charles looked at his friend and said:
“Well, that is a sensible comment. But see, first, we have agreed that eggs and
sperms are not individual human beings. So, their death is not the death of a
human being. Second, I think that the number of spontaneous miscarriages is
exaggerated by those who defend abortion, although nowadays it may be much
higher than in past ages, because the contraceptive pill produces sometimes a
hardening of the uterus that makes more difficult the nestling of the embryo.
However, the main reason why your observation does not affect our discussion is
because we are examining whether it is licit for a human being to kill an
innocent human being, we are not discussing why God allows that many embryos
die naturally.”
(7) At this point John looked serious, and then
asked: “if that is so, how does people like Peter Singer defend abortion?” “Oh,
John,” said Charles, “that is a hard question. The reason he gives is that to
say that human beings are ‘persons,’ endowed with dignity and the right to
life, just for belonging to the species homo sapiens, to say that,
according to him, constitutes the vice of speciesism, of thinking that
our own species is the center and summit of reality. Well, Singer totally
misrepresents what our forefathers, who rejected abortion, believed. They did
not think that human beings were the summit and center of reality. On the
contrary, they thought that God is the summit and center of reality and that
there are many other kinds of persons that are not humans and are above our
species: the divine persons and the angels. But Singer’s opinion is such a
violation of the golden rule of morality (“do nothing to others you
would not have done to you”) that it has seemed to me since long ago a
demonically inspired opinion. Singer hates humanity and proposes to legalize
not only abortion but also infanticide, up to the age of one year and a half.”
(8) “Well,” said John after a brief pause.
“Your last comments show that you are mixing religion and politics, Church and
State. What has God to do with any of this?” Charles was a bit taken aback by
this reply, but after thinking for a moment, he said: “Do you know, John, that
the great founder of Western medicine, Hippocrates, introduced an oath that
until very recently all medical doctors took very seriously?” “Of course!”,
John replied, “who does not know that!” “But, do you know,” continued Charles,
“the text of such oath? I will read some excerpts of it to you. Wait a moment
until I find it in a trustworthy edition. Here:
Ι swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Health, by Panacea and by
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out,
according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture. […] I will
use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never
with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to
anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will
not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy
both my life and my art.[2]
Of course you know that Hippocrates was no
Christian. He came to these conclusions through the use of his reason. But it
belongs to human reason to know and acknowledge that there is God, that we are
not the summit and center of reality, that only He is Lord of life and death
and that to respect this is a requirement of piety as much as of justice. What
is happening today in our society is not really a ‘separation of church and
state’ but the imposition of an atheistic world view on the majority of people
who are Christian or, at any rate, believe in God. Among the Founding Fathers
of the United States, the second greatest of them (after George Washington), i.
e., Alexander Hamilton, faced an evil regime that was imposing atheism in
France and spreading it everywhere. He understood that piety towards God is
essential to the real health of a political community, although he
distinguished this very well from the establishment of a particular Christian
confession. Tocqueville also has taught us that our 19th century
elites understood the importance of religion for the health of the republic. We
must reject the imposition of atheism and the pride of men who want to become
the arbiters of death and life of innocent people. It is fortunate that we can
count on the Church to remind us these truths that belong to unaided reason,
but that have been obscured by philosophical shallowness, cultural subversion
and by our own sins.”
(9) John was engulfed in thought, it seemed.
After some minutes, he proposed another difficulty, in order to know what
Charles would reply to it. “Tell me, Charles,” said John, “What do you think about
the argument that nobody should force a woman to be connected to a stranger
during 9 months?” To this, Charles replied: “Oh, John, I thank you for bringing
that iniquity to my attention today. Do you understand well what the argument
means and what it intends?” “Oh, no, I find it very strange,” said John, “but
at the same time I know it seems compelling to many young people. So, I want
you to tell me what you think.” “Well,” continued Charles, “it intends to
present an act of unjust killing as if it was an act of justified omission of assistance.
If a person is walking on the street and suddenly some paramedics and
firefighters call her and ask her to lie down on a stretcher so that they can connect
some tubes to her belly in such a way that she would be for nine months
supporting the life of a stranger now lying of the street who otherwise would
die, is she obliged to submit herself to such procedure? The argument wants to
equate this situation to the normal pregnancy of a woman. Do you see now? So,
the interruption of the natural process of pregnancy (and often the burning and
dismembering of the fetus) is equated to the refusal to being connected to a
stranger for nine months in order to save the stranger’s life. So, it is a
trick that aims at equating an act of killing and an act of justified omission
of assistance. Think about it: if a mother stops feeding her baby, is she killing it or just not assisting it? Besides
this equation, the argument also attempts to destroy the natural connection
between the woman and her baby. On this sense, the argument has something
demonic in it. In a case like that proposed by the argument, I would have to
answer to the paramedics and firefighters that I can’t spend 9 months like
that, since my first duty is towards my wife and children. But, if the person
lying on the ground is not a stranger, but my son, well, I would accept the
connection. Love must be ordered. The child in the womb is not a stranger, but
a son or a daughter. It is absolutely evil to attempt to devaluate the natural
bond of consanguinity.”
At this point, all the friends around that
little table just fell into a meditative mood. After a while we shook it, made
a toast for life and for the birthday boy and proceeded to sing by the cake.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario