The problem with abortion laws, as I've said before, is the attempt to apply a binary standard to what is really a continuum, which is bound to be inherently problematic. From what I understand of the human phenotyping process, there isn't really some switch that flicks and the fetus* goes from "not human" to "human" in the blink of an eye. Rather, there is a gradual development from "less human" to "more human". The problem, of course, is that the law requires definite binary distinctions on what is and isn't allowed. Usually with matters that are a continuum we can employ a similarly continuous legal response (for example, the overarching principle of severity of punishment being linked to the severity of crimes, along with courtroom sentencing flexibility for adjustment to specific cases). In the case of abortion however, in which the only possible outcomes are literally life and death, such a sliding scale approach doesn't apply. The question is simply whether or not a fetus at a particular stage of development is to be considered "human", and hence subject to the basic rights thereof, or not. The legal system in the US pretty much gave up on the concept of "semi-human" a long time ago (I believe the "3/5ths of a person" rule for Blacks was the last example of such, although I haven't looked into it. In any case, a similar rule for fetuses wouldn't help much with the subject at hand, as the binary life/death distinction would still have to be made at the end of the day). And although such things may exist in a de facto sense in areas of limited enforceability, there similarly isn't really such thing as "semi-legal". Hence, binary distinctions must be made for legal purposes, regardless of the realities of human development.
Almost everyone agrees on where the goalposts are; on one end, unfertilized sperm and eggs, which no one opposes killing (except possibly Catholics, and they don't seem terribly concerned about promoting that view to others, so I would assume it's an internal moral matter rather than an external ethical one), on the other end, a newborn infant, which as far as I know no one supports being able to kill, except for people who are either crazed nihilists or just like to pretend they are for Cool Points™. What we can't agree on is where in the intervening region to place the dividing line (this is where everyone jumps in and says, "That's silly, all reasonable/sane people agree it should be here!" while pointing at wildly differing areas of the continuum. Bloodshed and naked mud wrestling to follow). But of course there is no unassailable way to determine where it should be. No amount of scientific knowledge about the development process can settle the question of what does and does not constitute "human", which is for most people a personal philosophical matter. Most philosophical matters without real answers cause nothing more disruptive than a lot of idle chatter in coffee houses (or message boards, for that matter ;), but in this case, again, it determines life and death. Which is why disagreements about abortion tend towards the psychotic; since everyone's opinions are based on the dialectic equivalent of quicksand rather than any truly solid scientific or ethical principles, all they can really try to do is shout down the other side using polemic.
I do think that the problems can be ameliorated slightly by a "buffer zone" or zones of development which divide the legal status of the fetus into more that simply a harsh binary. Something like, before this point you can do what you want, abortion-wise, from that point to this point it is allowable only in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which places the situation in a similar medical ethics territory as cases involving siamese twins) and certain other extenuating circumstances, after this point it is not allowed although you can have the baby c-sectioned and put up for adoption, etc. This will not eliminate the central objection, just make the disagreement somewhat less potent. (I believe we have just such an arrangement in the US in most states, based on the three trimesters/degree of viability [with that last in flux due to improving medical technology, which demonstrates the pitfalls of ethical definitions based on current practicality rather than any overriding philosophy] ).
My central point is, no matter how many variables you try to take into account in the decision-making process, at the end of the day a determination must be made as to whether a particular fetus is only a proto-human lifeform, and hence legally able to be killed, or an actual human possessing the basic rights thereof, with no rational way to determine exactly and unquestionably where the dividing line is. Which is why I don't think the issue will ever be solved, except in a de facto manner if technology advances enough to provide cheap 100% effective passive birth control, thereby making the question effectively statistically moot (and while I'm not a huge fan of the government being involved in areas not explicitly allowed it by the Constitution, I can certainly bend my principles enough to be fine with the idea of it distributing such birth control for free if it becomes available, for reasons both humane and practical).
...
*looks around*
Ew, ew, I'm engaging in political discourse! Get it off me!
*Goes off to read about something more clear-cut, like how reality is just waves of probability which change when we look at them. Possibly.*
* Note: I use the term "fetus" above in a general sense of any stage of human development between fertilization and birth, not the strict scientific one. Given the broad nature of my point, trying to remain stringent with the terms would have forced me to use something like "zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus" every time I wanted to say the same thing. It was picked for being the longest period of development, not in an attempt to skew an (I hope) otherwise fairly neutral analysis.
_________________ Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson
Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|