From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Right Choices ("pro-balance")
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:19:38 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Right Choices:
A Political Solution To The Abortion Controversy

by Ken Barnes
(kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu,
75320.711@compuserve.com)

Abortion has become a political issue in this country 
through the polarizing efforts of the two political parties, as well 
as the vocal protests of activists on both sides. Much as we might 
prefer that it not be the case, this issue divides us as a nation as 
much or more than did the questions of slavery and segregation 
in years past. As a political issue, it has the potential to be the 
basis of another civil war. _Stupider things have happened..._ but 
need not, if a reasonable political solution can be found; not one 
that will satisfy everyone, but one which the majority of 
Americans can agree to live with, so that we can make the rights 
of mothers and the status of the unborn a matter of law, not 
tied to arbitrary judicial activism.

In my personal attempt to find such a solution, I concede 
these points: Human life begins at conception --to deny that is an 
absurdity. But I also concede that an acorn is not an oak tree --
neither is a single-celled embryo a baby. But a late term fetus in 
its ninth month_is_a baby, to deny that is not only absurd, but 
cruelty. Thus we begin with the easy part, defining the extremes.

To claim that "abortion stops a beating heart" is true, but 
in the earliest stages, the developing human life is not much more 
than a heart, without the ability to suffer that a baby, in the 
womb or out, clearly has. Yet unrestricted abortion 
unquestionably kills babies as surely as the drunken driver who 
kills a woman two weeks before her delivery date should be 
charged with two murders, not just one. A single celled human 
zygote is no more capable of suffering than the millions of other 
cells that die in our bodies every day, yet to place that cell's 
right to life as equal to the rights of a woman to decide whether 
or not she will have a child, or even to equate its right to life to 
that of a baby, would not honor the baby's life, but cheapen it. 
What we are faced with then, is not deciding at what point 
human life begins, but at what point a baby's legal_right to life_
begins.

That the democratic State has an interest in protecting 
the right to life is undeniable, since it is that right which makes all 
other rights possible. Still, the other rights are not to be taken 
lightly, or limits placed on them carelessly. In developing a political 
solution to the abortion controversy, both the mother's rights 
and the rights of her developing baby must be considered. The 
problem with abortion results from a conflict of these basic 
rights.

First the easy cases. Should a woman whose ill health makes 
pregnancy likely to kill her be prohibited from having an abortion 
necessary to save her own life? Both sides agree on this case, 
since it is a direct conflict between the right to life of the mother 
and that of the fetus. In this case, abortion amounts to self 
defense, and since the fetus would be unable to be born to a 
dead woman its prospects were rather bleak to begin with.
How about contraception? The Pill acts in many cases to 
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, thus denying 
it nourishment as surely as withholding mother's milk from a 
newborn. But are the two situations_really morally equivalent?_
Those who think they are should tread lightly upon the earth, 
since there are insects with more highly developed capacities to 
suffer than that of a fertilized egg. And as for barrier methods 
like condoms and diaphragms, which prevent sperm and egg from 
even_meeting,_let me remind you that only one sperm cell gets to 
fertilize the egg, and every month another egg goes to waste in 
women around the world. Let's just say every sperm is_not_
sacred, or we wouldn't be built this way.

Now the hard cases. You wouldn't think that conceptions 
resulting from rape and incest would require tremendous moral 
searching to determine what's right, yet for those who believe 
the right to life begins at conception, this_is_one of the hard 
cases.

If the fertilized egg has a right to life, it should have it 
regardless of the circumstances of conception. This is the only 
consistent "pro-life" position, yet those who hold it should carry 
with them thoughts of the harm they would permit to be caused 
to the young girl or woman who will give birth to a child in whose 
features she will see a painful blend of her own face and that of 
the rapist, or perhaps a child with_far too much_of a family 
resemblance. They will tell you adoption is the answer to remove 
this twisted mirror from her life, but they are not the one who 
must live with those thoughts for nine months --and for the rest 
of their life. It is for this reason I am not "pro-life."

The reason exceptions for rape and incest are hard choices 
are because they open the door to unrestricted abortion, for 
exceptions for other reasons not quite as strong as the mother's 
right to life. Yet I cannot call myself "pro-choice" either, in good 
conscience. In this conflict of rights, making the right choices 
means acknowledging that each side has a part of the truth. In 
an imperfect world, we must often settle for imperfect solutions.

This is my imperfect solution:

You may have noticed my constantly referring to the ability 
or the degree to which the fetus is capable of suffering. There is 
a reason, I feel, that we can swat a fly, or pluck a flower without 
empathizing with the object of our action, but we would feel 
much worse when we hit a bird with our car or have to have the 
family dog put to sleep. A fly or a flower, if they are capable of 
suffering at all, can only do so to a very limited degree. The 
higher brain structures just aren't there, as they are in the bird 
or the dog.

Likewise, we don't really sympathize with a kidney that's 
been taken out for transplantation, or with a heart, or with bone 
marrow. None of these organs is a_baby_either; yet if we were to 
take the nucleus out of a fertilized egg and transplant it with the 
nucleus from a kidney cell or a heart cell or a marrow cell, it 
would in principle grow into an identical twin of the person the 
particular organ once belonged to. This is what's known as 
cloning. While it's theoretically possible to clone humans, the 
procedure has really only been done with lower vertebrates like 
frogs (and more recently, mice).

If we wait until a fertilized egg has divided, first into two 
cells, then four, then eight, we can separate the eight cells of a 
single embryo and they will grow up into eight identical twins. In 
nature, usually only one of the cells breaks loose and then we just 
get two twins, but it is possible to do artificial twinning and it has 
already been used to create a small herd of identical cattle, each 
with their coats spotted in exactly the same place. This raises 
the question, if we kill an embryo at this early stage, are we killing 
one individual or many?

This may not seem to have much relevance to the abortion 
debate, but a technique has recently been developed which 
makes possible very early screenings for genetic diseases by 
removing cells at the early stage for testing. It can only be done 
right now for embryos fertilized in the lab, but it may make it 
possible for parents at risk of having children with genetic 
diseases to be assured that a child will be healthy without having 
to wait for amniocentesis much later in pregnancy. What can 
"pro-life" people say about a technique which could reduce late 
term abortions that requires killing the embryo's possible twin 
brother or sister?

What is needed is an agreed-upon point in pregnancy before 
which women are permitted unrestricted access to abortion, and 
after which the rights of the fetus begin to be taken into 
account. I say begin to be taken into account because there are 
circumstances like the mother's right to life, the rape and incest 
exceptions, and others, in which the fetus' right to life is not 
supreme. For me, that point occurs when the fetus has 
developed the structures which give it the capacity to suffer, 
since it is that capacity which sets the significant limit of the 
moral dimension of life, and that moral dimension is an exclusively 
human realm. The moral dimension brings with it our rights and 
also our responsibilities. As humans, in dealing with the issue of 
abortion, as with anything else, we have a responsibility to make 
the right choices.


[Postscript: Since I wrote this piece, I have been attempting to
develop a name for the faction in this debate which shares my
ambivalent feelings on the question. The best I could do is to
say that a balance must be struck between the rights of women
and the rights of the child they may carry. Hence "pro-balance".
Comments and flames, etc. can be emailed directly to me, and I'll
often respond. If you must followup, try to comment on my views.]

-- 
*.x,*dna************Standard disclaimer*******************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow