Abortion: Always a Bad Option, but Sometimes the Best

Hypothesis: We strive for Control of the World in which we Live.

That is the central concept in my recently published book, the resonance of Life. We take the above CWL Hypothesis as a given for this article. The goal is to see if it can throw any light on the ongoing battle over abortion rights in the US.

To begin, imagine the following two people:

• A middle-aged man who regularly goes to Sunday church services. He had a Christian upbringing and takes the Ten Commandments seriously.
• A 20-something unmarried female who knows pregnancy, while unlikely, is possible. While working and paying off student loans, she sees pregnancy and having a child as incompatible with her present life.

We can’t know for sure, but given those rough outlines, most would expect the man to have a pro-life stance and the woman to be pro-choice. Personal life details may cause reality to deviate from our expectations, but the basics concerning the world in which each lives provide a reasonable basis for our assessment. Based on the CWL Hypothesis, each person’s point of view is determined by what provides the most control relative to their life circumstances (i.e., the world in which each lives). If questioned about why they feel the way they do, they would provide arguments aligned with their control-driven decision.

The differences in their situations, but the common desire to control their worlds, lead to different opinions concerning abortion laws. The same is true for every concerned person. To isolate ourselves from personal or religious issues, let’s evaluate abortion using the CWL hypothesis, which we have assumed to underlie everyone’s behavior. Is it possible to develop some insight that’s independent of our situation?

Abortion from the “Control of Your World” Perspective

In a usual legal sense, a person does not exist until they exit the mother’s womb. With that perspective, it is entirely reasonable that a pregnant woman should want the option of terminating her pregnancy. The fetus, not being a “person” yet, would not have a claim relative to the “control of their world.” In short, what right would a fetus have to demand the woman be subservient to its needs?

However, from a see-things-as-they-are point of view, there is very little developmental difference between a fetus just before birth and a baby just after birth. The change in label from fetus to baby exaggerates the change in reality. Now imagine stepping back in time during a pregnancy. There is little difference from one minute to the prior one until the pregnancy’s start, the period of fertilization and implantation. With the fetus being genetically human, what right would the pregnant woman have to remove the developing baby from its required environment?

Rather than looking at the general concepts, consider the case of a pregnant woman at 8.5 months. What should be the crime if a stranger forcefully, but carefully, performed a cesarean section and then killed the baby? What should be the crime if that same person provided a drink to the woman that caused the fetus to die? What if the fetus was six months, three months, or one month old? If such a crime were to happen to a woman who desired the baby, she would likely want the person charged with murder.

If the woman were to cause the death of the fetus, what, if any, should be the woman’s crime? A key element of an ideal democratic society is that rules should apply equally to everyone. It then follows that a crime should not be a function of who did it. If a stranger ending the life of the fetus is murder, then the mother ending the life of the fetus should also be murder. The primary difference in the two situations is that the stranger leaves someone behind who feels the loss, someone whose legitimate right of control has been violated. Those feelings don’t depend on whether or not the fetus was legally considered to be a life.

The reasoning thus far implies that abortion should or should not be allowed depending on whether a fetus is considered a human life. Additionally, while a baby is not legally a person until they exit the womb, claiming that a fetus does not constitute a human life until that point seems strained.

Going up a level

Not having shed much light on the matter thus far, we need a new angle. It is argued in the resonance of Life that the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment, and our laws against killing, are a consequence of our desire to have control of the world in which we live. That rule makes a society more efficient and stronger by reducing the effort expended by members in protecting themselves and those who are important to them. With that thought, let’s take the abortion issue up one level. Does legalized abortion result, on average, in the members of a society having more or less control over the world in which they live? Does legalized abortion strengthen or weaken a society?

Relative to the first question, the answer again depends on whether we count the fetus as a life. If we don’t count the fetus, the pregnant woman has more control if abortions are allowed. Nobody else, except perhaps the father, is significantly impacted. If we count the fetus, its control gain by not being aborted could be presumed greater than the woman’s control loss by not being able to abort.

Trying to assess the impact of legalized abortion on the strength of society takes us into another foggy patch we must try to feel our way through. If abortions are illegal, women will suffer due to either having an unsafe abortion or having to endure an unwanted pregnancy. What’s unclear is if the resulting births would contribute more to society than what was lost by the women whose lives were disrupted.

We have two points for consideration. First, adding individuals is not necessarily good in a world where the human population is already straining the sustainability of Earth’s resources. Secondly, the answer also depends on the value society places on those babies whose mothers were forced to carry them to term. When the parents are unable or unwilling to care for a baby, how much is society prepared to invest in that child’s care and education? For children whose upbringing is turned over to the state, will they tend to weaken or strengthen a society? Banning abortions in the present-day US, and thus adding babies without committed parents, seems unlikely to improve societal strength.

A pro-life stance: Concern for the baby or a means to punish “bad” behavior?

Sometimes it seems those opposed to abortion are more concerned about protecting the fetus than caring for the baby and child. Undoubtedly, some believe you should not have sex unless you are open to being a parent. For them, do they see abortion as providing too easy of a means to escape the consequences of “bad” behavior? While it is virtually impossible to separate genuine concern for a fetus from wanting consequences for such behavior, we can at least try to raise awareness of confounded motivations.

Imagine a world where pregnancy was not a consequence of sex but occurred randomly. For those women wanting to have a child, becoming pregnant would be a stroke of good luck. For those girls and women with other plans, it would be either a minor hiccup or a life-changing event, depending on abortion access. In such a world, how many would say a woman, or your 45-year-old wife, or your teenage daughter must accept what fate has dealt, and how many would say they should have the option to terminate?

Bad options

Having an abortion is not something a normal person would take pride in. Most likely, it is seen as the least bad of bad options. In that sense, it is similar to a nation deciding to go to war. Fighting is undesirable but preferable to being slaughtered or subjugated. With both abortion and war, a greater degree of prior prudence could help avoid an unwanted situation, but humans are far from perfect and mistakes happen.

Let’s carry the correspondence between having an abortion and declaring war a little further. While we grouped the preceding two choices as undesirable options, we can group a pro-life stance and being a committed pacifist as noble ideals.

Relative to pacifism, we unfortunately live in a world of too many aggressive actors who disregard the rights of others in their out-of-bounds striving for control. As a result, the long-term well-being of one’s group/tribe/country often depends on the willingness of some to align themselves with a different, but still noble ideal–putting themselves in harm’s way for the sake of others.

While pacifists are typically viewed as people who refuse to take up arms, the noblest of the breed would be those who work to keep wars from starting, trying to keep everyone out of harm’s way. Just as a pacifist may work to minimize the causes of war, a pro-life advocate could work to minimize the demand for abortions through efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Summary

The “control of your world” evaluation of the abortion issue has provided no definitive answers. Still, it has yielded some insights and a little guidance:

1) Not surprisingly, a key element is when we consider a life to start. For most people, their view on abortion and their view on when life begins are intimately connected. Very few people would say that taking a human life can be justified based on convenience.

2) We previously stated that claiming a fetus does not constitute a real life seemed strained. However, looking back through history, that is what people do when they want to justify behavior that would be unacceptable if done to a “real” person. Whether we consider slavery, the displacement of Native Americans, the Holocaust, or untold numbers of other situations, we justify bad behavior by telling ourselves that the “others” are something less than human.

Similarly, those getting or performing an abortion do not view themselves as killing a human but as terminating a fetus, a less-than-human form of life. What if more people were more aware of the miraculous growth process of human life in the womb? Would that change the conceptual world of those who might consider having an abortion?

3) Unless society is prepared to properly care for and educate the babies of women who are denied abortion access, excessive restrictions may weaken a society.

4) Some anti-abortion advocates likely see it as a backdoor means to punish “bad” behavior.

5) Sometimes a bad option is the best option.

Wrap-up

It’s day #1 of a pregnancy. A few cells should not have priority to override the will of a woman. At nine months, on the other hand, we cannot deny human being status to a viable fetus. Somewhere between those two points, as the fetus develops, it acquires the right to be considered a person. Because there is no clear-cut answer, society must make a judgment call. In deciding the point beyond which the woman must care for the fetus until birth, society must recognize they must accept responsibility to care for the baby after birth.

Whether it be a woman, the leaders of a nation, or anyone of us, we all desire to control the world in which we live. We want as much sovereignty as we can get, but if we are to live in harmony, we must also allow others their own measure of sovereignty.