LIFE Magazine, April 30, 1965 |
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, May 29,
2014
We need an abortion law
Abortion in Canada is legal right up to
birth. Yes, most abortions occur much earlier, and most doctors don't do
late-term abortions. But wouldn't a law be appropriate to protect, say, those
few children in their last trimester who risk an unjust death by abortion?
Also, wouldn't a law be appropriate to protect
children from increasingly popular sex-selective abortion (gendercide), the
killing of children merely because they are girls? And wouldn't a law be
appropriate to protect the many children who risk being killed merely because
they have Down syndrome?
Such a law could save hundreds of lives,
probably thousands, yearly. Such a law could be supported by all Canadians,
surely.
Still, some object to any legislation
that restricts abortion. No law is needed, we are told. We should all be
"pro-choice," we are told.
We are even told that abortion
legislation is misguided: we should instead deal with the underlying causes that
drive women to abortion. A pregnant woman may be facing, say, psychological
problems, so we only need to deal with that.
But this objection is weak.
First, keep in mind that abortion kills
an unborn child—a human being.
Second, consider what Scott Klusendorf,
a pro-life activist, writes about the deal-only-with-underlying-causes argument:
"[T]his is like saying that the
'underlying cause' of spousal abuse is psychological; so instead of making it
illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling
for men."
Klusendorf adds: "There are
'underlying causes' for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way
makes it 'misguided' to have laws banning such actions."
Think about it: psychological problems
require psychological solutions, not the killing innocent children. So, to
protect the children, we need a law.
Or, if the underlying causes that drive
women to abortion are social or economic, then we require social or economic
solutions, not the killing of innocent children. So, again, to protect the
children, we need a law.
At this juncture, someone might object
that Canada's criminal code presently tells us that the unborn child becomes a
human being only after he/she is born. Yes, this is what our law says.
But Canada's criminal code is mistaken.
Enter 21st-century science. Contemporary
science—embryology, fetology, and biology—tells us that the human fetus is in
fact a human being, i.e., it's a genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic entity
which belongs to the human species. It's not feline or canine; it's human. It's
not a cat being or a dog being; it's a human being. It's not a kitten or a
puppy; it's a human child.
At this juncture, one might grant that
the unborn child is in fact a human being, but object that it isn't a
"person." That is, the unborn human being lacks that specific
developmental feature which confers "personhood." When it has that
feature, only then does it have the right to life.
This is known as a "decisive moments"
approach to personhood, which is deeply problematic. The allegedly decisive
features fail because they rule out various persons who clearly already have
the right to life. As a result, the equality of equal rights gets ungrounded.
For example, if complex personal consciousness
is the criterion of personhood, then sleeping or stunned persons lose their
right to life. If viability is the criterion, then personhood measures not actual
humanity but instead hospital technology, the sophistication of which varies
from place to place, rendering same-aged children persons in some hospitals and
non-persons in other hospitals.
What about the unborn child's lack of brain
activity (in its early stages), which in adults indicates death? Nope. This personhood
criterion confuses death and development: end-of-life permanent cessation doesn't
equal pre-natal temporary absence with capacity to bloom.
For the sake of children, we need a
law. See WeNeedaLAW.ca.
(Hendrik
van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
More APOLOGIA columns on abortion:
More APOLOGIA columns on abortion:
- Aborting the least of these (May 15, 2014)
- Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (March 28, 2013)
- Reflections on Motions 312 and 408 (October 4, 2012)
- Is the fetus a human being? (May 10, 2012)
- Abortion in the news (part 2) (November 9, 2011
- Abortion in the news (part 1) (October 20, 2011)
- On abortion again (another faulty argument from Morgentaler) (October 16, 2008)
- Acorns and oak trees ... and abortion (October 2, 2008)
- Aborting an abortion argument (September 18, 2008)
- Morgentaler's abortion of logic (September 4, 2008)
Further reading:
- Francis Beckwith, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life
- Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice
- Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
- Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics
No comments:
Post a Comment