Alan: Steve, this is where I part ways with you. Abortion is such a disruptive issue. Why must we always be debating? After all, the Supreme Court has already decided the outcome once and for all.
Steve: Has it? It seems to me the continuous debate over the abortion issue certainly is not settled. Besides, if the Court were the final arbiter of morality, then the Dred Scott decision of 1857 affirming slavery would still stand. But we all know now that was bad law. Legal decisions are overturned all the time. My point here is to show the distinction between legal decisions and moral decisions. The two do not necessarily connect. Just because abortion is legal now it shouldn’t stop us from challenging it on moral grounds.
Jane: Okay, let's talk about what's moral. Let's talk about child abuse. Is that moral? Without legal abortion lots of unwanted children will come into the world subject to a miserable life of neglect and abuse.
Steve: It seems to me that "wanted-ness" as a value applies to things, not to people. Do you think unwanted children should be allowed to stay in the world?
Host: What do you mean?
Steve: There are lots of unwanted children in the world, and unfortunately many are abused. But should we execute them in order to prevent them from being abused? What about the homeless and orphans? Should we get rid of them simply because nobody wants them?
Jane: Of course not! They are people - human beings!
Steve: Exactly! So the question is not whether the unborn are wanted; the question is whether they are human beings. If the unborn are human, then to execute them would be the worst kind of child abuse imaginable.
Jane: All right. I see where you are going. You want me to admit that a foetus is a human being by virtue of its "humanness." It may be human, but how can you say that an embryo is a human being?
Steve: What else could it be? The complete genetic structure of a human is present in the embryo. Science confirms this. This entity is human because it comes from human parents, and it is a being by virtue of its existence; it is a human being.
Jane: Look, I'll admit that there is little difference between a 7 to 9-month old foetus and a newborn baby. And to clarify my personal position, I think that if a woman has not had an abortion by the third trimester, then it is usually wrong.
Host: Why the third trimester cut-off?
Jane: Because "preemies" can survive outside the womb. They are viable.
Steve: Okay, let's say a foetus is nonviable until 20 weeks. All we are saying is that it is nonviable outside its natural environment - the womb. But we can also say that Alan is nonviable outside his natural environment. Suppose we placed him on the moon. Does Alan's dependence on his environment, the Earth, make him any less a human being?
Jane: Well, no...
Alan: Look, Steve. I understand the humanness argument, but I have some theological problems with a foetus being considered a "living" being - if Jane will excuse my interruption.
Jane: Be my guest.
Alan: Doesn't Genesis 2:7 teach that a person becomes a living being when breath enters his nostrils?
Steve: I think it states that God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Some theologians say this is when Adam became "alive". Since this is specific to Adam and since Adam was never an unborn child growing inside his mother's womb, then this case is unique to Adam. So it does not follow that all humans since Adam are living beings only after they breathe through their nostrils.
Alan: Okay, but what about the gospels? Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus speak against abortion.
Steve: What's your point?
Alan: If Jesus did not condemn abortion, how can it be immoral?
Steve: Now answer this question. Are slavery, child sacrifice, and drunken driving morally permissible?
Alan: Well, no.
Steve: Then your argument doesn't stand, because Jesus did not speak of a lot of issues that we know to be immoral. The biblical principles were quite clear - human life at all stages of development was considered sacred. He stated that killing is forbidden even of a child forming in the womb because "the fruit is always present in the seed."
Host: Speaking of "seed," how do you equate a human embryo with a human being. I say it is only a potential human being. After all, an acorn is not an oak tree!
Steve: To use your analogy, it's true that an acorn is not an oak tree. But that just shows that an infant is not an adult. An acorn has all the genetic structure to become a great oak. It happens to be an immature oak, but it is an oak; it never becomes an oak. All living things go through changes. An acorn becomes a seedling, a sapling, and a mature tree. A foetus becomes an infant, an adolescent, and an adult. Living things change and develop; they go through several stages. But as they change in size, shape, and appearance, they always remain what they are. So it is not that a foetus is a potential human being, rather it is a human being with great potential. The "being" is every bit as human at conception as it is at adulthood.
We understand that human life is fundamentally valuable regardless of arbitrary values placed on it such as "wanted-ness" and "viability." Finally, I think I showed that a human being is a human being at every stage of development.
Host: So where are you leading?
Steve: Let me propose a simple deductive argument; a syllogism based on what we have discussed:
Premise 1: Killing an innocent human being without proper justification is morally wrong.
Premise 2: The unborn is an innocent, fully human being.
Conclusion: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
If the premises are true, as we agreed that they are, then the conclusion must follow. It seems to me that anyone who is intellectually honest must affirm the obvious.
Alan: I don't have a problem with your argument as it stands. However, just being human doesn't make one a person. I don't think a foetus qualifies as a person.
Host: Okay, so what's the difference? You'd better be certain there is a difference before you claim that you can kill a human being who is not a person, but you can't kill one who is a person.
Alan: I think a person is one who possesses certain traits like consciousness, the ability to reason, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness. It's obvious that a foetus has few if any of these.
Steve: Your criteria means children under two years old, comatose patients, severely retarded individuals, and even those who are temporarily unconscious do not qualify as persons. Clearly, we know intuitively that killing children, the disabled or unconscious individuals is wrong.
Host: But don't some theologians argue this way?
Steve: Yes, I know of a prominent theologian and philosopher who aligns himself with the theory that personhood in the unborn is a gradual process. He thinks that since it cannot be determined precisely when a foetus becomes a person, then abortion should be legally permitted before six weeks after conception. I think he is wrong. If personhood can't be determined, why offer a six-week cut-off point? Why not five, seven, or twelve weeks?
Alan: Even if I can't tell exactly at what point a human being becomes a person - and it may be a gradual process - it seems obvious to me that an adult has greater personal value than an embryo.
Steve: So you want to say that a human being does not have full ontological and moral status until he or she achieves personhood, whenever that may be. Right?
Alan: Something like that.
Steve: And therefore it is not seriously wrong - or at least not as objectionable - to kill an unborn human.
Alan: Right.
Steve: Then if there are degrees of personhood before birth, wouldn't there be degrees of personhood after birth? In other words, by your standards, wouldn't it be less serious to kill a five-year-old child than an adult? Explain that to the mother of a five-year-old!
But let's look at it from a different angle. You seem to imply that a human somehow achieves a greater degree of "being" and moral status as it develops into a person. But where does this "being-ness" and "moral-ness" come from except from the basic genetic structure already present in the human embryo? What is personhood but the unfolding of potential from the actual? The "person" cannot exist without the human being; it arises from it and is dependent upon it. So the human being by its actual existence can be seen as necessary to, and therefore more valuable than, personhood.
Host: Where does this lead?
Steven: To kill the foetus is to kill the child is to kill the adult. It seems we are back to my syllogism and its inescapable conclusion.
Jane: I've got to hand it to you, Steve; you've made a good case. You seem to have accurately condensed your points into your simple deductive argument. We all took Logic together...
Alan: Didn't I sleep through that course?
Jane: ...and we understand that a true conclusion follows from true premises. But I think I see a way out. You said abortion without "proper justification" is morally wrong. Wouldn't self-defence be proper justification?
Steve: We've already allowed for exception when the mother's life is in danger.
Jane: Let me offer another scenario. My Feminist Studies teacher once lectured that abortion is justified because the foetus is an intruder in the woman's body. Suppose a couple has sex. They use every form of contraception available to avoid pregnancy, yet the woman gets pregnant anyway. The foetus is then an uninvited trespasser who is attacking the woman's body. So the woman is justified in using force to repel her attacker. She is merely defending herself.
Steve: That's a very persuasive-sounding argument, but I don't see how the foetus is attacking the woman's body; the woman helped to create it. In the first place, it seems natural in the very nature of the sex act that an open invitation is extended for another "guest" to arrive. Second, the unborn child belongs in her mother's womb. She is developing in her natural environment. So if the unborn child is actually in her rightful place - the womb - then doesn't she have a rightful claim to her mother's body? And if the unborn is a fully human person, as your teacher concedes, doesn't the mother have a moral obligation to nurture this person, this child, just as any mother has the moral duty to care for her dependent children? Otherwise, by your teacher's argument, one can have no quarrel with Susan Smith who strapped her boys into a car and pushed it into a lake. After all, these children were trespassing on her life!
Jane: I see your point.
Alan: This is all getting too deep for me. Perhaps it's better that we live by faith in grace. I don't think I need all this philosophy stuff.
Host: Alan and Steve, you are both Christians, yet he doesn't share your view. Why not?
Steve: Frankly, I don't think he has really thought this issue through. A number of Christian philosophers and thinkers have come to the fore in the marketplace of ideas, ably debating important issues like abortion and making the case for the Christian worldview.
Jane: Well, Steve, I must say I've never heard the pro-life position so well articulated. You've answered all my objections so far. Being a reasonable person, I'm struggling with the only conclusion I can see - your syllogism works. I've got to rethink my position.
Host: Thanks, Jane, Alan and Steve, for taking the time to join us today.
Jane: My pleasure.
Alan: It’s been... interesting.
Steve: Yes, we should do this again sometime.
