Assuming that No One is Pro-Choice and Pro-Life and that you are interested in forming an opinion on the subject, you ultimately need to make a decision about which camp you want to belong to. In my mind, this involves determining first what the parameters of the discussion really are. There are a number of issues that get brought up, but not all of them are truly relevant as to whether or not someone ought to be pro-life or pro-choice. So, we need to frame the debate.
Philosophical Issues
Abortion primarily gets discussed around a small number of basic moral and metaphysical issues. In my mind, these are fairly straightforward questions, though the answers might get tricky.
- Is the fetus alive?
- Does a fetus have a “right to life”?
- Under what circumstances is it morally permissable to kill a living person in the womb?
Policy Issues
The policy issues are issues about what should be done about it, if anything, once you’ve made up your mind. There are a good number of policy issues involved in this topic. These are things like the following:
- How would we enforce an anti-abortion law without violating the mother’s right to privacy?
- What would the punishment for getting an abortion be?
- Won’t this cause back-alley abortions and harm the health of women?
Why I’m Pro-Life
“You have to have been born to count!”
Oh? Why would the location of a person relative to their womb change what they are? If we stick the baby back in the womb, can we still kill it or is it just a one-time deal? What about Cesearian or surgically-removed premies? Do you have to pass through the birth canal? It seems odd that we would have such rigid constraints here.
“You have to be able to live on your own to count!” ”You have to be viable!”
No infant can live on their own. Arguably, most people can’t live on their own. I don’t think that makes it ok to kill them. “Viability” doesn’t seem to pan out to me because newborns are increasingly viable as medical technology advances. Surgeons have successfully performed surgery on premies in utero and premies have increasingly improving survival rates as time goes on. So, to say that it’s alright to kill someone just because, in the event that they *did* have an issue, we haven’t developed the technology to make them viable seems morally and metaphysically problematic at best. Effectively, you’re saying that we’re should count more and more things as living beings as the centuries progress. Technological prowess shouldn’t make it morally permissible to murder the elderly and young children.
“You have to be a person!”
What, exactly, defines a person? While you’re busy building a definition, I’d like to point out that you’re likely going to find that either the unborn exhibit the same behaviors you’re describing in utero (and that we’re continuing to discover a number of different things about the unborn as time goes on) or you’re going to describe someone much older than you intended on doing (e.g. a toddler, possibly some adults). Also, keep in mind that this is a moral/philosophical debate (which should be prescriptive) and not a debate about what the law currently is (which would be descriptive). Really, “personhood” doesn’t solve any issues so much as it just moves the problem and muddles the conversation.
“It’s my body!”
The problem is that it isn’t *just* your body. Pregnancy does a number on a woman, but why would the torment of pregnancy give the woman license to kill? (And, if it does, at what point does it stop? Husbands should tremble in fear of this argument.) Or, a stranger version of the question, how many organs would I have to donate to someone before I could kill them (because it’s my body)?
If you buy into the first bit, I think most of the basic policy issues are actually fairly easy to work out. When the life of the child has to be weighed, things become less muddled. For instance, take the “rape” concern. What if you had consensual sex with someone, got pregnant, had the child, and then got raped by the same person? Moreover, what if the child looked just like your rapist? Rape is a terrible crime, but that wouldn’t give you license to kill the child. You have to be compassionate to both parties when you acknowledge the existence of the child.
Additionally, if you accept the above, the practice of abortion becomes legally problematic. Why is it legally acceptable to kill the unborn but not the born? Why do we protect the rights of only some children and discriminate against the others simply because of their age?
Anyway, that’s more or less my 2 cents. Keep it civil in the comments.