Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The Abortion Conundrum

I've given the topic of abortion considerable thought, and although I agree in general with the LDS position that it is a sin "like unto" murder, I do see a few shades of gray around the margins. I start with the opposite extremes. On one hand, I think all reasonable people should be able to agree that there's nothing particularly magical about a fertilized egg that warrants granting it the same legal status as a human being; otherwise, using an intrauterine device (IUD) -- which, logically, doesn't prevent fertilization of the egg, but only its implantation in the womb* -- for contraception would have to be considered the same thing as having an abortion. (And I daresay there are tens of thousands of temple-recommend-holding Mormon women who use, or have used, IUDs.) On the other hand, I also think all reasonable people should be able to agree
that late-term abortions are absolutely inexcusable, given (a) the brutality and inhumanity associated with the notion of destroying a viable or near-viable human fetus, and (b) the inherent difficulty of distinguishing, for practical purposes, between a late-term fetus and a newborn baby.

The real policy question, therefore, is where to draw the line in the middle. In general, I think it is morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy intentionally, although there are three major exceptions. The first and most obvious is a clear and present danger to a pregnant woman's life, although I think such situations are much more rare than the pro-choice crowd would acknowledge.. The second (and almost equally obvious) is rape, including statutory rape. Some people might say that a baby is a baby, no matter what the circumstances of its conception; however, I look at pregnancy in terms of personal responsibility, and the idea of compelling a woman to give birth to a child she was forced to conceive (or who had no legal capacity to consent to the act whereby it was conceived) smacks too much of slavery, however noble it might be for her to go ahead and carry it to term. Therefore, I believe that rape victims should have an unqualified right to have abortions, at least in the first trimester (although one hopes that they would have the presence of mind to visit the hospital after the trauma, which I understand would do a D&C as a matter of course to prevent pregnancy).

(By the way, I'm a little torn on the subject of pregnancy resulting from incest, at least insofar as it doesn't also involve statutory rape. I think, based on my [admittedly limited] science background, that the traditional fear of birth defects resulting from inbreeding is generally unwarranted, at least across one generation. However, given that incest naturally rips families apart, I can see how abortion might help to ameliorate the damage to relationships. Nonetheless, on balance, given my tendency to regard the issue in terms of individual responsibility, I believe that pregnancies resulting from consensual relationships, even incestuous ones, should not be terminated.)

The third exception would be cases where the fetus isn't developing normally and has been determined to have defects that will cause it to die outside the womb in any case. (Note that I don't include Downs Syndrome as a defect warranting abortion; not only do I believe that Downs babies are worth saving, but I'm not sure where one would otherwise draw the line in the quest for "designer babies.")

Having stated my position, however, I do think that an abortion performed in the first six weeks of pregnancy is slightly less objectionable, morally, than a late-term abortion. They may both be sins in the eyes of God, but somehow the first doesn't seem as, well, irresponsible as the second.

As far as Roe v. Wade goes, I admit I regard it as judicial over-reaching at its worst. It is true that its being overturned would have little practical effect, given the mobility of present-day American society and widespread public approval of expansive abortion rights; in other words, it wouldn't make much difference if some states outlawed abortion, since others would undoubtedly legalize it, and it's a simple, relatively inexpensive matter nowadays to travel to another state. (Also, one has to think that modern technology or pharmacology will come up with "cleaner," earlier ways to terminate pregnancies that won't involve clinics, or possibly even doctors.) However, I heartily disagree with people who believe that abortion isn't a moral issue or that it doesn't have societal implications; the debate goes on, and rightfully so.

* I understand that medical opinion generally holds that IUDs actually -- magically -- prevent the very occurrence of conception, despite the fact that they are undeniably an effective post-conception abortifacient. It all sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me.