Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:56:55 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect

     The liberal, or pro-choice position may be described as one that 
allows abortion to be performed if the potential mother desires it.
Although many pro-choicers will say this is the unconditional right
of the woman to control her body, it does not necesarily mean they
approve of abortion as a primary means of birth control.  The pro-choicer
will often strive for abortion-on-demand practices so the woman has
no constraints in the manner she wishes to govern her body.
     One pro-choice method of reasoning is based on the statement that
the fetus is simply a clump of tissue.  Dr. Henry Morgentaler summed
up this argument quite concisely by saying:
     in the earliest days of a pregnancy, we are not faced with a human
     being, but with a very primitive form of life which only has
     the potential to become a human being.  Thinking of a fertilized
     ovum or an embryo as a baby is contrary to all out knowledge:
     it is as if someone affirmed that an acorn was already an oak,
     a seed a rose, or a blueprint a house. (cited in McDonnell, 1984,
     p. 46-47)
Dr. Morgentaler has failed to consider the argument of probability in
his statements.  Of course an embryo cannot be considered a baby, but
it's potential to become a baby is far greater than an acorn has to
become an oak, a seed a rose, or a blueprint a house.  With an embryo, 
normally all you need to do is allow it some time, and it will develop
into a baby.  The other examples require a series of steps to be taken
before development may be complete.
     A more convincing liberal argument comes from the appeal to a woman's
right to have control over her body.  Indeed, many pro-choicers liken the
fetus to an unwanted parasite, but there is a more productive way to
display the argument.  J. J. Thomson has made this argument popular
using an analogy with a famous violinist.  In the analogy, you imagine
waking up beside an unconcious famous violinist.  The Society of Music
Lovers has kidnapped you, tied you up, and connected your circulatory
system to his.  Your healthy kidneys must rid his blood of poisons
which his kidneys are incapable of doing in order for him to survive.
You must stay in bed with the unconscious violinist for a full nine
months, or else he will die (cited in Feinberg, 1984).  Of course,
in this analogy, you are not obligated to "carry the violinist to term"
if you do not want to sit in bed for nine months, even though the
violinist does have a right to life.  There are several problems
with the connections between this analogy and actual pregnancy.
First of all, the argument may only be applied to victims of rape, 
because in the analogy the victim is forced into the situation.  
Second, actual pregnancy does not force a woman to stay in bed the
entire nine months she carries the fetus.  There are many discomforts
and pains associated with pregnancy, but certainly this tremendous 
lack of freedom is not the case in pregnancy.  Upon the above analysis,
it is not reasonable to conclude that a woman should be morally
correct in aborting even a pregnancy that was the result of rape.
     Another analogy made by Thomson attempts to show the validity
of a woman's right to control her body.  In this "people seeds"
analogy, there are tiny seeds which blow in the wind, and take root
in the carpeting and upholstery of the houses they enter.  After 
rooting, the seeds develop into normal human beings.  Thomson continues
by supposing that people who do not wish to have people seeds in their
houses, but still wish to have fresh air flow through their houses, may
install special screens to keep the seeds out.  If a seed happened to
slip through the screen, then Thomson does not believe the owners of the
house are obligated to allow it to use their carpet and upholstery to
grow in.  The rooted seeds are analogous to the fetus, the house to the
woman's uterus, fresh air to intercourse, and screens to contraception
(cited in Feinberg, 1984).  This analogy can only be applied to those
women who want to abort a pregnacy occurring due to the failure of
contraceptive devices.  Why is abortion allowable in this case?  How
can you decide to abort a fetus simply because the probability of
conception was extremely small?  When engaging in coitus, there is always
at least a minute chance of pregnancy occurring, and potential parents
should not be able to abort simply because they didn't thiink a pregnancy
was possible.
     Obviously, a woman has a right to control her body, but should
that right override the right to life of even just a potential person?
I think not.  If the woman's life will be put at significant fatal risk,
then her right to life would out-weigh that of the fetus, but these
are not common cases.  Suppose a woman were forced to live in the same
house as a fetus that was developing in plain view in a bottle on the
counter.  Further suppose that the gruesome sight of the fetus caused
the woman to have terrible physical problems such as nausea, terrible
digestive cramps, and respiratory difficulties.  These problems may
be analogous to some of the physical problems of a pregnant woman.  The
fetus in the bottle has innocently caused great pain and discomfort
to the woman.  If the woman were to slay the fetus, and bury it far away,
her problems would be over.  Does her right to control her body allow
her to slay an innocent fetus?  No, it does not.
     One final investigation of the pro-choice philosophy involves
M.A. Warren's position on the right to life.  She surmises that only
actual people have a full right to life, while all other living beings
have a lesser right.  She then concludes that because a fetus, even
when fully developed, cannot quite be considered a person, the right
to life of the fetus is lesser, and even insignificant (cited in
Feinberg, 1984).  How can anyone, or anything only have a partial right
to life?  Rights seem to only be applicable if they are either present,
or not.  There are no half rights.  Also, if this argument is deemed
true, then infanticide becomes just as acceptable as abortion
supposedly is.  It is very difficult to prove that a newborn baby
is actually a person, but we do not consider these babies to have
insignificant rights to life.
     It seems as though the pro-choice movement is more self-serving
than it is logical.  I have yet to encounter a morally and logically
correct example of justification of most cases of abortion.  I must
concede that abortion should be allowable among those pregnant due
to rape, but even this case of abortion should not be considered moral.
Possible penalties of such abortions, and who should suffer them will
be discussed toward the end of this paper.


NEXT POST:  Moderate Positions, and Why They are Unreliable

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion