A couple months ago a private member's bill was introduced in Parliament, proposing that Parliament debate and decide the point at which a foetus becomes a human being. There was considerable outrage and accusations that Conservatives were revealing their hidden agenda. The usual rhetoric came out: "it's my body" and "it's my choice," and the proposal was quickly quashed. No debate.
This is a good answer to a thorny issue! The Government has no mandate to impose laws on what are essentially moral questions. In Canada its mandate is to preserve peace, order and good Government (administration). People decide moral questions, and laws preserve the society.
However, an interesting question has been raised: sometime between ovulation and birth, a mystical transformation happens, where a blob of the mother's flesh becomes an independent human being, with his or her own rights. We find the killing of a baby after live birth to be revolting; we call it infanticide and it is illegal. At the other end, few people find any fault with using birth control to suppress ovulation. What is happening here?
The answer must lie in the privileges, powers, rights and responsibilities of women. A woman certainly has the power to become pregnant, to create a new person; and by law she has the right to decide when and how she will do so. But she also has the responsibility to make a coherent moral decision about when she will transfer some of her rights to her child. The law insists that she do so at birth; and I believe most pregnant women make the transfer well before that.
The privilege and duty to make this decision lays with the mother, a consequence of her biological inheritance. It is too important, too contentious and too private a decision to trust to the Government. But it should be taken seriously by every woman!
Two things in the abortion debate upset me:
ReplyDelete1. People who feel they have a right to impose their moral imperatives on me (in either direction!); and
2. People who deny that there is a moral issue. Abortion is serious, because at some point it becomes murder. If we don't give the question enough brain-time, we might just slip over that line.
The DNA of the fetus (foetus) is unique (fully distinguishable) from the mother's DNA as soon as the fertilized egg splits the first time. If our courts use DNA to uniquely identify rapists, why don't we allow DNA to identify separate individuals (not a lump of the mother's tissue) in the womb?
ReplyDeleteJohn, I respect your position, and understand your rationale. I personally would assign individual rights later in development, perhaps at 4-6 weeks, when evidence of a brain and mental activity starts. There are lots of ways to define a human being.
DeleteBut my main point is not *when* an egg becomes a person, but *who* has the authority to define that moment. Certainly not the Government!
There's a curious dichotomy between the "pro-life" faction and the "pro-choice" faction: a person is supposed to belong to one or the other.
ReplyDeleteBut are these mutually exclusive? Can one believe in the right to choose, but also respect life -- in effect, what you said about the government not having a mandate to make moral decisions?
One could take it a step farther and argue that an environment where women can choose freely (and, presumably, the men involved could offer support or raise concerns) could also contribute to more and better lives.
I don't have the statistics, still less the answers, but I do think there's ground between the two factions.
I agree entirely, Jeff, and I think you have eloquently captured what I was getting at. I personally believe that most abortions in our society are done for selfish or immoral reasons; but I also believe that my opinion is irrelevant to all the women who have to make tough decisions for themselves. Q: am I pro-life or pro-choice? A: yes.
DeleteJohn Bowling asked, "Does that mean the government shouldn't have penalties for murder? That's a moral issue."
ReplyDeleteSteve Sibbald replied, "The Government should not penalize murderers for moral reasons, but because it is in its best interest to do so. We need a stable and safe society. Theft, murder, extortion, tax evasion and so on undermine our society. But adultery, for instance, does not threaten society (except in perhaps a very indirect and long-term way) so it is a moral issue, dealt with in family court or in church, and not by police or criminal courts. So too with abortion."