CONSISTENCY AND THE CONSERVATIVE ABORTION POSITION
by
Dave Yount
Introduction:
In this brief paper, I want to show that it may be difficult for the conservative[1] in the abortion issue to have a consistent reason for his or her position. This article is not in any way arguing that the liberals have a better or the best view regarding the abortion issue. What this article will do, however, is (1) address some of the common reasons given for the conservative abortion position and (2) question the consistency of these various reasons across differing situations in which the pregnant mother finds herself.
What is the conservative abortion position? I will refer to the moderate conservative position as the position that allows three exceptions to the general “no abortions” rule; that is, abortions are morally permissible only in cases of incest, rape, and where the mother’s life is in danger. I will call the extreme conservative position the one where abortions are not morally permissible at any time, even when the mother’s life is in danger. Let us now examine five different cases, seeing first how the moderate conservative would handle them, and work our way to the extreme conservative position. I will argue that the moderate conservative position, as portrayed here, is inconsistent, and that the extreme conservative position is counter-intuitive, and as such both positions (as portrayed here) leave much to be desired.
Five Cases and the moderate conservative position:
CASE 1: Voluntary sex, no contraception: Sophie is sleeping around, not using contraception and gets pregnant. She wants an abortion. Suppose the moderate conservative uses the following reasons to argue that an abortion in Sophie’s case is not morally permissible: (1) She knew that pregnancy may result from her actions, (2) the fetus is a person with a full right to life from conception, (3) she can give the baby up for adoption once it is born, and (4) she should be responsible for her choices and carry the baby to term. Not all these reasons would have to be used, but we’ll return to these reasons as we examine the other cases.
CASE 2: Voluntary intercourse, best available contraception: Linda is CEO for a large corporation and loves her career, but feels that it is her right to have intercourse every once in awhile. Linda does not want children – having them would ruin her career (as she sees it), since she travels constantly and would not be able to keep her job. She does not want the financial expense of being pregnant or the time off for appointments, morning sickness, etc. She discovers she is pregnant, and wants an abortion. The moderate conservative would probably respond with all of the reasons given in Case 1: (1) Linda knew pregnancy was possible; (2) the fetus is a person from conception, (3) adoption is possible, and (4) Linda should still be responsible for the baby. Again, we’ll return to this case after considering others.
CASE 3: Voluntary intercourse, from incestuous relationship. This is the first exception to the moderate conservative position. Reasons for the permissibility in this case might be: (1) the mother is too young, or (2) possible genetic deformities in the future baby. First, note that if the age of the mother is relevant, then that reason could override both Cases 1 and 2 and allow abortions in the case of young mothers (though the precise age would have to be articulated and defended). So, to attempt to avoid more exceptions, the moderate conservative should choose the second reason, that the baby might have possible genetic deformities. But if that is a good reason, then note that the moderate conservative position would seem to be committed also to the view that some fetuses are worth more than others, and it also implies that there are four, and not only three, exceptions to the “no abortions” rule: Namely, imminent death of the mother, rape, incest, and possible genetic deformities (in “non-incestuous” pregnancies as well). This might lead one to ask whether it is morally permissible according to this argument to kill infants who are born with deformities. This practice is most arguably morally impermissible. Nonetheless, this “possible genetic deformities” reasoning would allow women in Cases 1 and 2 another “way out” (from their perspective) – have amniocentesis performed and if there are any genetic deformities, then abortion should be permissible, if, that is, the moderate conservative is consistent. Note that if the incest is involuntary, then this scenario falls under the case of rape, which is discussed next.
CASE 4: Involuntary intercourse, from rape: The situation is clear and needs no further explanation. What is the moderate conservative’s reasoning to allow this exception? It might be argued that (1) The woman should not be held responsible because the intercourse was involuntary; and/or (2) the woman should not have to relive her bad experience through nine months of pregnancy and having to either raise the child herself or put it up for adoption. If these reasons are given, then let’s look at each reason separately.
Regarding the first reason, that involuntary intercourse implies a lack of responsibility to the pregnancy, several comments should be made. First, if it is cogent to argue that the woman should not be held responsible because it was not voluntary, what if a woman felt “pressure” on a date to have intercourse, would she be able to use this as a reason to try to be an exception as well? Second, one can argue that a woman who is using contraception does not voluntarily get pregnant even if she is voluntarily having intercourse, since that may be the reason that she was using contraception.
Regarding the second reason, that the psychological stress of the pregnancy/parenting/ adoption is too much to bear, several implications are clear: First, and importantly, what happened to the fetus’ having a full right to life from conception? How did the fetus lose consideration (or at least get less consideration), due to the psychological stress put on the mother? Second, looking back to Case 2, adoption was used as a possibility for Linda in order to argue that Linda should not be allowed to abort her fetus, and Linda will be put under immense psychological stress if she is forced to carry the baby and care for it, so the reasoning is not consistent from Cases 1 and 2, to 4.
CASE 5: Imminent death of the mother: What if Jackie (the mother) is certain to die of complications due to the birth of the baby? The moderate conservative might respond: (1) The fetus in this case does not have a right to life, or (2) Jackie’s life is more important than that of the fetus (or, alternatively, the fetus has less of a right to life than the mother), and/or (3) Jackie should not have to be responsible for birthing this baby. Again, reason 1 is inconsistent with cases 1 and 2 – either the fetus has a full right to life from conception or it does not. The moderate conservative cannot eat his or her cake and have it too. If Jackie’s life (in the current case) is more important than the fetus’, then why can someone not argue that Linda’s life (from Case2) is more important than the fetus’ when Linda involuntarily got pregnant (though she did have voluntary intercourse)? Moreover, how did Jackie become less responsible than Sophie (from Case 1), and, lastly, does not every woman (in any of the above cases including Case 5) know or realize that if she becomes pregnant, there is the possibility of her dying during the birthing process? Note that this reason about knowing that some future event is possible is the same kind of reasoning that was given in Case 1 for Sophie’s abortion not being morally permissible – she knew that pregnancy was possible, so the reasoning went, and therefore she must be held responsible.
I have tried to show that the moderate conservative, if he or she uses the reasoning given above for arguing against abortions, is not using consistent reasoning to argue that abortion is morally impermissible except in the case of incest, rape, or the imminent death of the mother. In one case the argument is that the woman should be held responsible and the fetus has a right, and then the right of the fetus and the responsibility of the mother decreases as the cases move toward more conservative. Will the extreme conservative fare better on consistency and plausibility? Let us examine their view.
Let us suppose that I have shown that the reasons above show that the moderate conservative does not have a consistent reasoning to argue that abortion is morally impermissible except in the case of incest, rape, or the imminent death of the mother. The extreme conservative can claim consistency by arguing that all cases of abortion involve murdering a fetus with a full or absolute right to life from conception, and therefore are morally impermissible. However, this position has the drawback of having to defend cases that seem ridiculous to argue against, such as in the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the newly formed zygote starts developing in the mother’s fallopian tube. If the zygote is not removed, the fallopian tube will in all likelihood burst, causing lots of internal bleeding, which in turn has a great chance of causing death. Also, note that the zygote in this case cannot develop into a baby unless it is removed and implanted in a uterus. In this case, then, both the zygote and the mother will die. The extreme conservative’s position is that the zygote (being a conceived human being) is a person and as such has a full right to life, so how do we decide between a zygote that has a full right to life and will die, and a mother we can save?
The extreme conservative may argue that, in the ectopic pregnancy case and in a case where the fetus would live but the mother would die, the mother has lived a fuller life, and the fetus has a whole life ahead of it. But what mother would use this reasoning and allow herself to die, knowing she could save her life? What husband would argue that nothing should be done so the fetus (whom the father does not know yet in any significant way) can live its whole life? So this reasoning defies common moral intuitions about what is right to do in this case.
Lastly, it might be argued that we should let nature take its course, and doctors should do nothing in this case: After all, each person has a right to life, so the mother and fetus (in whatever stage) have an equal claim and stake in things. What do we make of this “let nature take its course” argument? This argument does not seem consistent with our current use of medicine; for instance, if we should let nature take its course, then we should not stop any bleeding, take any antibiotics, have any surgeries, etc., since these do not occur in nature. If the extreme conservative cannot be consistent by arguing that nature should take its course in all cases and that we should refuse all medical treatment, then it is not a consistent position to argue that we should let nature take its course in potentially fatal pregnancy cases. And if the extreme conservative position is counter-intuitive and/or inconsistent, and the moderate conservative position[2] is not consistent, then I leave it for the reader to consider: Where does that leave us?
© 2001 by David J. Yount
[1] I find the terms “pro-life,” “anti-abortion,” “pro-choice,” and “pro-abortion,” to be misleading: that is, most “pro-lifers” and “anti-abortionists” favor a few exceptions (and hence are “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” in those few cases), and most “pro-choicers” and “pro-abortionists” favor life in general and may favor some exceptions to their ‘abortions are permissible’ rule, such as partial-birth abortions. So I use the terms “conservative” for a person who is more against abortion than for it (possibly allowing certain exceptions) and “liberal” for a person who is more in favor of abortion than against it (again, possibly allowing for some exceptions).
[2] Note that I did not argue that the moderate conservative position could not ever be made consistent. I have only argued that, for the moderate conservative, the reasons given above cannot be made consistent throughout all five cases presented above.