The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Abortion Question

Much has been said and argued on the topic of abortion, and Pro-choice and pro-life proponents often argue past each other, based on different assumptions and propositions. Whenever I look at an issue, I try to get to the core of the issue and examine the core based on facts and intellectual reasoning. When I look upon the subject of abortion, I believe the core of the issue is very simple. The question of abortion is:

Is an unborn child a human being or not a human being?

There are three possible answers to the question of whether an unborn child is human or not as follows:

1. The unborn child is not human and not entitled to human rights until it has been born, and the umbilical cord is severed, and the baby is surviving on its own.
2. The unborn child is not human until sometime during gestation, at which time it becomes human. Prior to this event occurring, the unborn are not entitled to human rights. After this event has occurred, the unborn is human and is entitled to human rights.
3. At the time of conception, the unborn child has the DNA structure of a human being, and unique to within itself, and therefore is a unique human being deserving of human rights.

Argument number one is not to be believed but by all but the most extreme pro-abortion supporters. If you get into a conversation with a pregnant woman, you did not ask her how that growing mass of fetal tissue is doing; you ask how her baby is doing. The mother will often respond and talk about the unborn child growing within her. With the advances in medical science, we also have many cases where an emergency cesarean must be performed for many different reasons. Many children born under these circumstances do so several months before their due date, and they can grow up to be healthy and productive members of society. The other issue with this argument is the situation where if, by accident or deliberate action, one person harms or kills the mother and/or child. Under this answer, it is only the mother who has been harmed or killed. If the intent was to kill the unborn child before birth, then the perpetrator may go unpunished if they only harm or kill the child. A situation that I find totally unacceptable.

As to the argument that an unborn child is not human because it is not viable outside the womb and dependent upon the mother to survive, I would remind all that an infant is not viable outside the womb and requires the care of someone to survive infancy. I would also remind all that there are many ill children who require hospitals and medical research centers to sustain their lives and perhaps cure their illnesses. Would you apply this viability argument to determine if these children should live or die? I would also remind all that there are many others who, through illness, injury, or mental incapacity, are not viable without the assistance of others. Would you apply this viability argument to determine if these persons should live or die? Thus, the viability argument for abortion is a weak argument, as it can only be logically applied to an unborn child, and for all other situations on the viability of someone, it fails in its application.

Argument number two requires that you have a scientific definition of what constitutes pre-human versus human. It also requires that a medical test must be developed to determine if the unborn is in a pre-human or human state. This test would be required because prior to being human, an abortion would be legally justified, but once the unborn child becomes human, the abortion would be legally unjustified as it would take the life of a human being. This medical test would have to be performed immediately before an abortion to determine the legality of ending the unborn child’s life. Without determining the human status of the unborn child before an abortion, you could be interfering with the rights of the mother or interfering with the rights of the unborn child. Many scientists, doctors, and other people believe that this is the correct answer to the question of whether and unborn is human or not. The problem with this argument is that there is no scientific or medical definition of what constitutes a human being, and therefore no medical test can determine if an unborn is human or not. They often resolved this conundrum by stating that this event occurs sometime between two dates in the gestation. But without a scientific definition of what constitutes a human being, this argument is based on belief, not scientific fact. It also does not resolve the question of whose rights are paramount during this period of time; the mother's right to abort the unborn child or the unborn child’s right to life.

Argument three has some basis in scientific fact. If you gave a cell of an unborn child and a cell of its mother to a geneticist, you could ask the question of the geneticist of what species are these cells? They would respond that they are human. If you asked that same geneticist if they were the same person, they would respond that they are not, as each genome structure is unique to each human. The geneticist could tell you which cell is from the mother and which cell was the child of the mother. The geneticist can do this because the genome structure of a cell determines the species of the cell, and having a genome structure of a human being makes you a member of the human species. Having a genome structure that is different from another human makes you a unique human.

Having pointed out the falsifiability of the first argument and the ambiguous nature of the second argument, I am left with nothing but the third argument to resolve the question of is the unborn child a human being or not. Therefore, I believe abortion is a violation of the human right to life of an unborn child.

At this point, it would be wise to examine some of the peripheral issues of abortion.

Some would say that as a man, I could not possibly understand what a woman is going through in making the decision of whether to have an abortion. While this may be true, it is not germane. This is because I am not looking at this issue as a man or a woman; I am looking at this issue as a human being and in relation to human rights. Because I believe that this is an issue of human rights, I also believe that this is a decision that must be made on a national level that is implemented on all members of society. Just as slavery was an issue of human rights that had to be decided on a national level, abortion needs to be decided on a national level, and not left up to the individual States or to individuals.

Another argument is we have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Well, this is not quite true. In a free society, we extend a lot of latitude to a person (both male and female) to choose what they are doing with their bodies. We do, however, set limits, such as suicide is illegal, taking prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription is illegal, prostitution is illegal, taking regulated drugs is illegal, and in some cases, even some elective surgery is illegal. Therefore, we do have the right to set limits on what is permissible and not permissible for an individual to do with their body. However, in my argument, I am not telling a woman what she can do with their body; I am telling a woman what she can do with the body of another human being growing within her. Many would claim that this is not fair, as the woman has the burden of the pregnancy and child-rearing. To which I say, ‘Who said life is fair’? On this planet, the male of the species inseminates the female, and the female is the incubator of the unborn child. That is what life is on this planet, and it is neither fair nor unfair; life is just is what it is. I do believe that pregnancy is a shared responsibility between the father and the mother, and that our society should do whatever it can to make this a shared responsibility and to help relieve any undue burden on the woman because of pregnancy.

Then there is the case of having to perform the abortion to save the life of the mother. This is the most troubling and difficult issue for me. Thankfully, with the advances in medical science, this occurrence is rather rare today, but it does occur. In this case, and this case only, I believe the decision to abort the child should be made by the mother, in close consultation with her doctor (and father, family, therapist, perjury or other support personnel that can help the mother reach a justifiable decision), and with the concurrence of a family court judge that there is a physical reason for an abortion. In no case should the abortion be performed for mental health reasons, as there are so many mental health reasons as this exception would allow for abortion on demand. Abortion is only to be performed when the physical life of the mother is in jeopardy. Mental health issues need to be dealt with as all other mental health issues are dealt with, by obtaining the proper mental health and social services to assist the mentally ill with their problems, not by performing an abortion.

Some people also bring up the argument of what about the case of rape or incest. They often wish to utilize this case to allow for abortion under these circumstances and to demonstrate that abortion is permissible within circumstances. To which I say to them, can you explain to me how an unborn child is any less human because of the manner in which it was conceived? Conceived in love, passion, hate, anger, rape, incest, or any other manner does not diminish the humanity of an unborn child in any manner whatsoever. And in this case, abortion is as unjustifiable as it is in every other case.

There is also the question of back-alley abortions if abortion should become illegal. There are always back-alley activities for all things that are illegal. Just because there are back-alley activities does not mean that we should make these activities legal. To do so is to have a society that has no permissible limits, which invites chaos into our society. The solution to the problem of back-alley abortions is better education on the impacts of an unwanted pregnancy, contraceptives before you become pregnant, and adoption services after you become pregnant. This requires self-control before you engage in sexual activities, but self-control is necessary for all activities that you engage in. This also means accepting responsibility for your actions.

Finally, the question of the prosecution of those persons who engage in illegal abortions needs to be addressed. The illegal act of taking the human life of an unborn child is a criminal act that violates the Human Right to life and the Constitutional Rights of due process of the unborn child. If the fetus dies naturally during gestation, its right to life has not been violated. However, if the fetus dies because of the deliberate action by another person, then its life has been unjustly taken. If you are involved in an auto accident and lose your life, you have no right to claim your Right to Life was violated. If, however, someone has caused the accident, either through intentional or unintentional actions, then they can be charged with a crime from vehicular manslaughter to murder, depending on their actions. This is because they have unjustly taken your life. So, it is with abortion, as the act of aborting a fetus is an intentional act. Both the person that performs the abortion and the person who receives the abortion should be held accountable for this criminal act. The only question is the proper sentencing for those that have engaged in illegal abortions.

My follow-up article, “The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery”, is an examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War. This article provides a perspective on the moral question of the Natural Rights of all persons.