Imagining for the moment that there were no abortion laws and assuming that the woman’s own life was not in danger and that it was simply a lifestyle choice to abort very late – say 35 weeks or so – it’d be hard to see it as anything other than murder for one's own gain, arguably the most severe and permanent infringement of an individual's liberty that there is. However, at the other end of the process – around the time a morning after pill is used, for instance – it may be no more preventing a small number of undifferentiated cells from plugging themselves into the uterine wall in about a week's time.This is the point where my views begin to diverge from his. I agree that late stage abortion has no real difference from killing a newborn, but I seriously question the assertion that the fertilised ovum is anything other than a unique human being with their own life that cannot be justly brought to an end.
At one end there is definitely a someone, and like any other someone objectively his or her life has value. At the other end is a something, and while it’s something I’d value almost as much I can’t deny that that’s subjective. In between those two extremes is a large area that's increasingly grey around the middle.This grey area is almost at the heart of the matter. The real problem here is continuity. Where is the point between embryo and baby where you can definitely say that is where the transition occurred? Is it when the first brain cell develops? The first heartbeat? Something that is "looking human"? I have come to the conclusion that this question has no meaning. There is no definable point between embryo and baby where you can say, right, from this moment forward we have a human being. Do you want a simple and categorical change in the nature of the being? Well, I can point to one: conception. At conception we go from being two haploid cells with no innate ability to divide and live to a single diploid cell with utterly unique DNA and, assuming conception did not occur in vitro and notwithstanding unlucky circumstance, the potential to grow into an adult human.
And here we run into another problem - most become nothing at all. Though I first learned this at school I’m not sure it’s widely known, but the majority of pregnancies fail and the majority of those that fail will fail early, i.e. in the first trimester. ... So it seems hard to assume that very early embryos/pre-embryos have rights to the uterus because of what they may become when sadly it's quite likely that they'll become a slightly heavier than normal menstrual flow and perhaps worse than usual cramps.This is informative but it doesn't really affect the issue. Percentage chance of continuing life is no measure of the value of a life. In earlier centruries it was common for more than 50% of your children to die before adulthood. I don't think any sane person would venture to suggest that gave the parents decisional right to whether to raise them or not.
We can go further still and consider that those cells are almost entirely the woman’s own material except for the tiny component which is the single sperm that got into the ovum, and anyone who’s ever finished off a round of horizontal tango and found that the condom broke will know that that sperm cell may not necessarily have had an invite.Once again, I have to say this does not fundamentally affect the issue. Any human is home to far more bacteria than their own cells, as is every full grown foetus no match for the number of cells of the woman carrying it. For these reasons I don't consider the situation of the newly fertilised egg to have any bearing on its uniqueness or life.
... do those cells get rights because the woman willingly took part in an enjoyable activity which admitted other cells into her body, one of which resulted in her becoming pregnant? It's tempting to think active participation makes it so ...Very tempting - in fact I believe it does. Any sexual encounter is associated with a probability of pregnancy occurring as a result, except of course for those who are infertile for any reason. No matter how many measures of contraception are used they may all fail. Everyone who consents to intercourse knows this, and therefore accepts that pregnancy is a possible outcome. I'm not sure many people know this but that is the fundamental reason for laws regarding consent. I don't mean to discount the psychological damage that can happen when there is no consent (rape, in case you missed it), but at their heart the laws of consent recognise that both parties have a responsibility for the results of their actions, and one possible result is pregnancy. To accept the possibility of pregnancy at first and then turn and claim that the pregnancy is unwanted is foolhardy. If pregnancy is to be avoided, sex must be avoided.
Libertarianism, at least the way I see it, is both freedom and responsibility. The choice to end a pregnancy, whatever my personal feelings on the matter, is about a woman’s freedom and ownership of her own body to begin with and, if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, about her responsibility to exercise her choice long before the stage at which she’s also responsible for a human life within her.Libertarians are fond of returning responsibility to the individual. I am taking that to its logical end - if two people consent to having sex they must both be willing to accept and care for a child that may result. That means abortion is not an option, at the very least not as after-the-fact contraception.
That's all I want to say for now about the reasons why I believe that in general abortion is not to be considered as after-the-fact contraception. I am going to venture from the sure foundation of logic and reason into the trecherous territory of morality and ethics.
Consider a hypothetical situation: let's say a woman has a loving husband, has the means to support a child, and wants to have a child. Would she get an abortion? I ask because it seems obvious but I don't know whether people recognise that if all women who were "sexually active" were in that situation, abortion would not be necessary. From what I've gathered over the years most women who resort to abortion are not just ice queens who have no regard for the life of their own children. It is typically the type of action to which one is driven by circumstance - like stealing food if you are about to starve. Shame, avoiding an "honour killing", the will of the father, these things are real and serious social issues and I can well understand the mind of someone who is driven to abort a child because they would suffer great persecution, even death, if people found out.
So I am not saying that I don't have sympathy for women who have ended up in these very difficult situations. In nearly all cases though, if abortion is the cure, the disease is preferable.
Not that I am calling pregnancy a disease, you understand. In fact, the acceptance of abortion in our culture is, I strongly believe, in part resultant from the change in how children are seen. In the past children were seen as a blessing, a gift. In modern times it seems a lot of people view them as a financial burden that restricts your own freedom to travel or do whatever. The very concept of an unwanted pregnancy is partially resultant from this view which is tremendously damaging to society. Think of my hypothetical situation before: the woman wants a child and has the means to bring one into the world, so why would she even consider aborting?
Another reason for the prevalence of abortion in our society is the prevalence of those conditions that will put women in these very difficult situations. "Casual" sex, particularly, can be blamed here, but so can all sex that happens outside marriage generally. Would a woman have shame for getting pregnant when she's married to the father? Would her male partner demand an abortion if they are financially stable and they both want a child?
Those extremely difficult situations that lead a woman to consider abortion are nearly all avoidable. You cannot get pregnant if you do not have sex (don't comment about IVF - I know and so do you, and you know I know). Abstinence is simple and obvious, but it's not easy. I may write further on that topic in the future.
