(An
examination of the concepts as they relate to the abortion debate)
By
Kenneth J Doyle
Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee - Jeremiah 1:5
Historically
there are a number of areas we could look at with regard to the
nature and definition of humanity and person-hood and the roles
these ideas played in the justification of the treatment of
particular groups. Two of the more obvious occurrences would likely
be the issue of slavery or the treatment of certain groups under
tyrannical regimes such as the National Socialist movement in Nazi
Germany or similar events in the
Soviet Union.
For the purposes of this brief essay however I would
like to focus in on the on-going abortion debate as this issue is
currently hotly contested in the United States and elsewhere. As of
writing, the matter faces a significant legal change in my home
country of Ireland where elective abortion is illegal.
So why all the fuss surrounding abortion? First, let us
define the term and then we shall look at some of the arguments and
definitions used on both sides of this issue to justify the various
positions taken.
Abortion
is the untimely termination of the developmental process of a human
pregnancy before full gestation and birth can occur. This essay will
address only voluntary,
surgical abortion for non-medical reasons
as this is the major battle-ground of debate in terms of justifying
the actions of the various concerned groups on both sides of the
divide. I think it is fair to say that this is a dichotomous issue as
one is generally in favor of elective abortion or not although
exceptions can exist. I see no point in including the ignorant or the
apathetic as neither of these groups have much to say on the issue.
Abortion,
as a matter of conscience and privacy, has been legal in the US for
forty years following the Supreme Court decision in the Roe
vs Wade case.
And yet a fierce war of words rages to this day regarding the
ethical, moral, philosophical and social implications for a nation
that allows such a practice. Recently the organized March
for Life
in Washington D.C. brought over half a million protesters calling for
a repeal of the Roe
vs Wade decision.
Historically
abortion has always been a controversial issue. The Old Testament
Jewish law of compensation in Exodus 21:22 makes
a distinction between the penalty for striking a pregnant woman that
ends in the loss of the fetus or the death of the mother. Early
Christian writings, like the Didache and the Epistle to Barnabas,
preach against abortion, widely practiced in the Roman Empire during
the period. Several early council records of bishops condemned
abortion which they linked to the practice of adultery. This latter
example has partial echoes in today’s debate where abortion
(chemical or surgical) is often utilized to correct the unwanted
outcomes of behavior that might otherwise be avoided if the recourse
to abortion were not so readily available.
The point we are trying to
illustrate here is that despite the practice of abortion throughout
history and despite it's legal status, there is something about the
act that bothers the conscience of many people on a level that goes
beyond the mere practical and material. The very nature of Man's
being and purpose plays a large part in justifying the positions
held. One side argues that man is more than the sum of his material
parts and is therefore deserving of protection at all stages of life,
be he born or unborn, young or old, and the other side tends to a
more utilitarian and material view of Man and his place in the
Universe, at least at certain points in physical development at
either end of the scale of life. It is this clash of worldviews that
makes abortion, even to this day, a highly contested issue on several
planes of discourse that encompasses both the material and the
philosophical.
The full scope of this
controversy is enormous and daunting. We will endeavor to contain
this essay
within the parameters of the definitions
of humanity
and person-hood
and how they are used and defined. We will ignore for example,
the debate surrounding the issue of life as in the question, “Is a
fetus truly alive?” And of course even if we accept that a fetus is
a living entity, this reality has no bearing on the notion of its
humanity or lack thereof. We will also avoid any debate surrounding
whether a fetus feels pain or not. There is evidence that they do but
it seems like a pretty base idea upon which to justify the ending of
life. And the irony is that on the other end of the end-of-life
debate we are willing to accept that people should be allowed to die
precisely because they do feel pain.
It is unlikely we will
settle this issue as the terms in question have been debated for
centuries by philosophers and ethicists and yet the debate continues
to this day. With that said it seems that how one chooses to view the
issues in question ultimately comes down to an act of will with
regards to where one decides to plant one's moral or ethical flag.
Certainly logic and reason can play a huge part in helping one decide
but we cannot discount the fact that the ego is also a powerful
determining factor for many people. What I mean by this is that many
people will ally themselves with one side or another based on ideas
which they feel better suit themselves and their current situation
rather than accepting more profound and reasoned objections that
might require deep self examination. Agenda also seems to play a role
in the definition and use of terms in the abortion debate arena. This
last fact is evidenced in the shifting acceptance of terms that has
occurred but with no change in the over-all position held.
So, what does it mean to be
human or be a human? Materially speaking it can seem quite
difficult to put forward a solid and non-objectionable definition of
humanity in terms of listing qualities that are both sufficient and
necessary. More often than not some objection can be raised based on
the effects of illness or injury or any other factor that can damage
or distort the qualities offered as part of such a definition. And
yet despite these objections, despite the fact that we can all become
ill , damaged or broken in some way, most of us still accept the
reality of our individual humanity without question. We never look at
someone and think they might be a horse or a goat or a boat despite
any physical or mental damage that might be evident. The implication
then is that perhaps mankind is indeed more than the sum of his
physical or mental integrity. There are some who might look at people
who are mentally defective and view them as perhaps less human than
themselves and of course we have seen this fact played out with
terrible consequences in history yet when we talk about simple
biological reality even with this latter example there is still a
recognition of material humanity as being something evident and
obvious. Here again, we would seem to have some manifested form of
the idea that man is more than the sum of his parts despite any
objections we might have to the resulting consequences of this view.
