George Tiller, a doctor and abortion provider in Kansas, was shot and killed outside his church on Sunday. The large majority of people on either side of the abortion debate are understandably horrified by an event like this. But it sets up a rhetorical dilemma for anyone who takes seriously the claim that abortion is murder. If George Tiller really was a “baby killer” comparable to Hitler and Stalin, it’s difficult to express unmitigated sadness at his murder. So we get Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, admitting regret — but only that Tiller was a mass murderer who “did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.”
On those rare occasions when they attempt to actually talk to each other, people on opposite sides of the abortion debate usually end up talking past each other. Supporters of abortion rights speak in the language of the autonomy of the mother, and her right to control her own body: “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Opponents of abortion speak in terms of the personhood of the fetus. (Yes, Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who! — “A person’s a person, no matter how small” — is used to teach this point to Catholic children, over Theodor Geisel’s objections.) Opposition to abortion rights can also be a manifestation of the desire to control women’s sexuality, but let’s concentrate on those whose opposition is grounded in a sincere moral belief that abortion is murder.
If someone believes that abortion really is murder, talk of the reproductive freedom of the mother isn’t going to carry much weight — nobody has the right to murder another person. Supporters of abortion rights don’t say “No, this is one case where murder is completely justified.” Rather, they say “No, the fetus is not a person, so abortion is not murder.” The crucial question (I know, this is not exactly an astonishing new insight) is whether a fetus is really a person.
I have nothing original to add to the debate over when “personhood” begins. But there is something to say about how we decide questions like that. And it takes us directly back to the previous discussion about marriage and fundamental physics. The upshot of which is: how you think about the universe, how you conceptualize the natural world around us, obviously is going to have an enormous impact on how you decide questions like “When does personhood begin?”
In a pre-scientific world, life was — quite understandably — thought of as something intrinsically different from non-life. This view could be taken to different extremes; Plato gave voice to one popular tradition, by claiming that the human soul was a distinct, incorporeal entity that actually occupied a human body. These days we know a lot more than they did back then. Science has taught us that living beings and non-living objects are the same kind of things, deep down; we’re all made of the same chemical elements, and all of our constituents obey the same laws of Nature. Life is complicated, and rich, and fascinating, and not very well understood — but it doesn’t obey separate rules apart from those of the non-living world. Living organisms are just very complicated chemical reactions, not vessels that rely on supernatural essences or mystical élan vital to keep them chugging along. Except “just” is a terribly misleading adverb in this context — living organisms are truly amazing very complicated chemical reactions. Knowing that we are made of the same stuff and obey the same rules as the rest of the universe doesn’t diminish the value or meaning of human life in any way.
There is a temptation in some quarters to forget, or at least ignore, the improved understanding of the world that science has given us when it comes to address moral and ethical questions. Part of that is a healthy impulse — science doesn’t actually tell us how to distinguish right from wrong, nor could it possibly. Science deals with how the world works, not how it should work, and despite centuries of trying it remains impossible to derive “ought” from “is.”
But at the same time, it would be crazy not to take our scientific understanding of the world into consideration when we reflect upon moral questions. If you think of a fetus as part of an ongoing complicated chemical reaction, it should come as no surprise that you might reach very different conclusions from someone who thinks that God breathes the spirit of life into a fertilized ovum at the moment of conception.
That’s why it’s equally crazy to believe that science and religion are two distinct, non-overlapping magisteria that simply never address the same questions. That bizarre perspective was advanced by Stephen Jay Gould in Rocks of Ages, but if you read the book carefully you find that his definition of “religion” is simply “moral philosophy.” Which is not what the word means, or how people use it, or how actual religious people think of their beliefs. Religion makes claims about the real world, and some of those claims — not all — can be very straightforwardly judged by the criteria of science. We do not need to invoke spirits being breathed into fertilized eggs in order to understand life, for example. And the fact that science has taught us so much about the workings of the world has enormous consequences for how we should think about moral and ethical questions, even if it can’t answer such questions all by itself.
For example, science is powerless to tell us when “personhood” begins — but it tell us something very crucial about how to go about answering that question. In particular, it tells us that there is no magical moment at which an incorporeal soul takes up residence in a body. Indeed, the concept of a “person” is not to be found anywhere in the natural world; it’s a category that is convenient to appeal to as we try to make sense of the world. But there is not, as far as science is concerned, any right or wrong answer to the question of when the life of a person begins — from Nature’s point of view, it’s just one chemical reaction after another.
At this point, a lot of impatient people declare that morality and ethics are simply impossible in such a world, and storm out in frustration. But this is the world in which we actually live, so storming out is not a productive response. Morality and ethics are possible, but they’re not to be found in Natural Law — they are the creation of human beings, reasoning together on the basis of their shared feelings and experiences. Human beings are not blank slates, nor are they immutable tablets; we are born into the world with certain wants and desires and natural reactions to events, and those feelings can adapt and change over time in response to learning and reasoning. So we get together, communicate, understand that not everyone necessarily agrees on how the social world should be organized, and try to negotiate some sort of mutual compromise. (Or, alternatively, try to impose our will by force. But I like the mutual compromise approach better.) That’s how the world actually works.
“The moment when a fetus begins to accrue the rights we bestow on post-birth persons” is something that we, as a society, have to decide; the answer is not to be found in revelation, or in faith, or in philosophical contemplation of the nature of the soul, or for that matter in the natural world. This starting point is not necessarily prejudicial to what the final answer may be; I can certainly imagine a group of people coming together and agreeing that newly-conceived fetuses should be granted all the rights of any person. I would argue against them, on the basis that the interests of an autonomous and fully conscious mother should weigh much more heavily than those of the proto-person they carry. But I can’t say that they are unambiguously wrong in the same way that an erroneous claim about logic or even the empirical world can be said to be “wrong.”
If the social and political arrangement of a group puts stress on the autonomy of its individual responsible members (which ours does, and I like it that way), deciding what the criteria are for being judged an “individual responsible member” is of primary importance. Who gets to vote? Who gets to drive a car? Who decides when to unplug the respirator? Who is of “sound mind”? Who is a person? These are all hard questions with no cut-and-dried answers. But we can be fooled into thinking that some of the answers are pretty straightforward, if we believe in outdated notions of spirits being breathed into us by God.
There are many reasons why it’s incoherent to think of science and religion as simply separate and non-overlapping. They are different, but certainly overlapping. The greatest intellectual accomplishment of the last millennium is the naturalistic worldview: everything is constructed of the same basic building blocks, obeying the same rules, without any recourse to the supernatural. Appreciating that view doesn’t tell us how we should behave, but failing to appreciate it can very easily lead people to behave badly.
@ Smadin, that’s exactly it! You should be compelled to give me a kidney if you poisoned or destroyed mine, even accidentally, if you were somehow specifically engaged in an act that ran that specific risk. Legality is irrelevant by the way, you can’t link to a philosophical essay and then talk about standing law, they’re two different things. Law may be derived from philosophy, but is not required to be philosophically consistent or valid.
Scott, I don’t know which Fox Pundits you listen to – as opposed to the utterly fair pundits on other channels who “feel a chill” up their leg when Obama speaks. I, for one, have only heard Tiller referred to as “late-term abortion doctor” which he most certainly was. And no legitemate pro-lifer questions abortions when the mother’s life is genuinely in danger. You are doing exactly what you accuse the pro-life lobby of doing.
There are 6 million pregnancies a year in the US, so if 1 in 1000 of them go horribly wrong, and Tiller’s one of only two doctors nationwide who performs the procedure, and he’s been working for over twenty years… well, that would indeed be 60,000, although I do wonder where you got the estimate from.
In that case, I’m very glad that you are not in charge of making the law — that point of view strikes me as absolutely horrific.
thanks for your interesting and thoughtful piece. waaay too many knees have been jeked. 🙁
MissPrism has already said it better than I.
If a person proper was tying down a woman. Preventing her from doing her job. Filling her with chemicals. Endagering her health. Sucking out her nutrients. Against her will. Would we not be obliged to release her from that serfdom?
So if the foetus is a person, homicide is justified in this case, for there is no other way of saving the mother from her tyrant.
Sili.
The woman created the tyrant.
And jerked, too.
To you guys obsessed with rehashing the JJ Thompson analogy debate, both sides are tidily summarized in a chart at wikipedia… you can save some keystrokes by referral to it.
@smadin,
I could be wrong, but I sense you’re taking an entirely academic and hypothetical discussion about ethics far too personally.
However restitution is already a fairly well established practice in law (again, not that we’re talking about law) and you have to remember, you (in the example) willfully endangered my kidneys in the first place.
What is wrong with you, you monster! 😉
Sean,
I’m trying to understand how your posting in any way makes the case that science and religion are not separate & non-overlapping. I’m not getting it.
Naturalistic view:
a) There cannot be a person prior to conception, because there is no well-established individual before that point: no defined genetic inheritance.
b) The development following conception is essentially continuous through to the actual birth.
c) An attempt to define personhood at the point of extra-utero viability is doomed, because the point of viability is a function of technology: It is a moving target.
d) Logically, personhood must be established by societal consensus at any event between points a) and b).
Religious view(s):
a) There are a range of religious views (as there are a range of religions); but I think most views would not assert personhood prior to conception. (Indeed, otherwise, I’m not sure what would be meant by the term “conception”, in the absence of a detailed biological model of reproduction.)
b) Likewise, I think most religions would definitely assert personhood by the point of birth.
d) So there is still the same range of variability on time of attainment of the personhood of the being: sometime between conception and birth.
You probably would claim that the naturalistic view leaves the issue of personhood as an open issue, bounded by a 9-month period; whereas the religious views (or at least some religious views) would pin that down to the very beginning. OK: But even under a religious view, the real issue is not whether the being is a person but how the rights of that person may conflict with the rights of the mother. Even if the status of that being is conceded to be established, that does not automatically imply that this being’s rights are 100% of those that would be possessed by a fully independent free-standing being.
So I think Sean’s attempt to entail the question of the religious vs. scientific worldviews into the abortion issue is a red herring, and misses the point: From either perspective, it boils down to an issue of social consensus on rights. In this case, the assertion of a naturalistic worldview in place of a religious one adds precisely nothing to the discussion.
I would point out that, in the case of the Terry-Schiavo situation, this would not be the case: A purely religious point of view, uninformed by knowledge of neurology, could lead someone to incline towards preservation of the existing life, perhaps in the hope of ultimate cure; whereas a scientific/medical point of view would persuade one that there would be essentially no hope for cure and only a very tiny basis for consciousness at all.
Thanks for this blog…it was refreshing to read.
This debate will never be resolved. And it’s terribly tragic that one man had to be murdered.
Most of you commenters are splitting hairs here, but it’s sure fun to follow.
@35 Neal J King
I agree that the post doesn’t falsify NOMA… My objection is that Naturalistic v. Religious world-views are each philosophical viewpoints and people who hold either may employ the tool of scientific investigation. There is no such thing as a “scientific worldview” any more than there is a “bus-driving world view”. Science is an analytical tool – not a world view.
Pretty good conversation. Amazing how long it took to get to the dueling media.
However, I must disagree with the idea that belief in God is “outdated,” and that science can inform us in any way about such a belief. The actions resulting from the belief, yes, but not the belief.
I most certainly agree that the Declaration of Independence is the basis for our US law and would commend it to anyone as a basis for a worldview or a government.
smadin said:
“Even if we consider an embryo a full person, with full human rights, those rights never include using another person’s body against the latter’s will, just as I have the right not to donate a kidney even if, because I don’t, someone else will die.”
What about after a baby is born. A newborn constantly needs his/her mother/father for care. The parents get very little sleep, the mother breast feeds, one parent has to take time off work, etc. The physical and mental demands are heavy. So what if a parent says “Enough of this. I hate this, I don’t want to do this anymore.” and kills his/her baby because the baby is using the parent’s body/time/mental energy against the parent’s will. If the parent does that, it’s murder. So I don’t think your argument is the relevant thing.
I guess the issue is what is law supposed to do? We clearly do not legislate morality. For example, we don’t lock a guy in jail for cheating on his wife with lots of other women. But if you think about it, the fetus is obviously a human being. Depending on its stage of development, it has a brain, a heart, arms, and legs. But at conception, it is a single cell but has its own DNA and its own potential for development towards a fully grown person. Since a zygote has human DNA and develops into a baby, why would it not be a new human life? A skin cell won’t develop into a baby, but a zygote does.
So, for me, the issue isn’t when human life begins, because it’s obvious. Obviously a fetus is a human being, just look at ultrasound pictures. The issue is: does a woman have the right to terminate her pregnancy even though that means the human life inside her dies? Do I want to see human life (whether it’s a fetus, or a newborn) die? No. Do I want the back alley abortions, putting a woman’s life and reproductive health at risk? No. I do think abortion is wrong, but we don’t legislate morality. We legislate for the common good of the citizens of the country, and that depends on who you choose to call a citizen.
smijer:
There are people who base their worldview primarily on the basis of current scientific models, and there are people who base it on their religious beliefs. That being the case, there can be conflicts between them. In some cases, the conflict is significant: I refer again to the Terry-Schiavo example. But with regard to the issue of abortion, I think it’s a red herring.
ree ree:
I agree with you that the issue is the legality of abortion, which is motivated by the morality of the situation. But you said: “We clearly do not legislate morality. For example, we don’t lock a guy in jail for cheating on his wife with lots of other women.”
Who do you mean by “we”, kemosabe? If a guy gets caught carrying on like that in a land governed by sharia law, he can get stoned. (And I don’t mean by marijuana.)
Also, the distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen is not really the issue: Citizenship is also a legal construct, which has different complications in different countries. Even in the US, the citizenship of an unborn child is indeterminate, as it cannot be defined until the day of birth. The real issue is personhood and the way that society wants to deal with conflicting interests of the persons involved.
Good article, although I would agree with Martin that just because science cannot measure a soul does not mean there is one. Science does explain how the world works, but it doesn’t explain why the world is the way it is. You either accept that things are the way they are because that is how they are, or you can come up with alternative explanations eg there is a God who created everything. Of course, then you could ask the same why question about God, but that’s the point where most Christians seem to do what scientists do and play the ‘we just accept it.’ So really science and religion are just accepting the same reality but at different levels, which means the abortion debate becomes a topic where there can be little reconciliation and no concrete answers. Just like the free speech issue ( http://www.newsy.com/videos/free_speech_or_sparking_violence ) you end up with pundits on both sides spouting opinions as facts and trying to lay the blame on other people.
Neal J King: I think there are several issues at play with abortion. I honestly don’t want to get into all of them. Science does answer some questions about the development of the fetus in ways that may be philosophically and ethically important. It doesn’t, however, exclude the possibility of a supernaturalistic viewpoint of personhood – that is a purely philosophical question…
I am one of those who bases my world view (in terms of “architecture of reality”) primarily on current scientific models, using an empiricist epistemology. I just worry when the waters between a naturalistic world-view and the practice of science get muddied.
One way they get muddied is when people with my world-view try to make it incumbent on others by saying that only a world-view that is completely naturalistic is reconcilable with the practice of science. That diminishes competing world-views (incorrectly) by suggesting they are empirically wrong (when one cannot evaluate the necessary philosophical propositions empirically), and it simultaneously undermines the empirical nature of science by imputing to it non-empirical metaphysical viewpoints. This leaves “science” open to the charge of “scientism”.
To smadin (#14): If however, you were the reason why the person needed a kidney (stabbed them perhaps) and then you don’t give them one and they die, you would be charged with murder. A pregnant mother (usually) had a choice of getting pregnant (a simplistic view) and therefore if they get pregnant and then don’t want to provide their body for the baby and the baby then dies, seems like murder to me.
” It doesn’t, however, exclude the possibility of a supernaturalistic viewpoint of personhood – that is a purely philosophical question…”
It sounds more like an empirical question about reality; and surely philosophy has matured somewhat beyond discussions regarding the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Neal J. King-
You make the wrong conclusion. The religious worldview takes some portion of the issue, whether where life begins or the rights that such personhood entails, to be beyond debate. Whenever we weigh other considerations, we are taking the position that we must accrue evidence of some sort to support our argument – the means of reaching social consensus. It is not the naturalistic, but the religious worldview that adds nothing to the discussion by placing certain areas outside the bounds of discussion, by positing unverifiable entities and notions – by trying to circumvent social consensus by assertion of authority. The article’s point is that it is not (or should not be) that easy to make moral decisions.
Great article Sean!
I agree with Matt. If you have consensual sex with someone, you take the risk of getting pregnant. If you don’t want to have a baby, use protection or don’t have sex. If you get pregnant, too late. If you don’t want the baby, give it up for adoption. No fetus/baby (i.e. a human being) needs to die. There’s two bodies, not one, during pregnancy. There’s the mother’s body, and the baby’s body. The way to have a say over what happens to your body is to choose whether or not to have sex and whether or not you use protection. Of course, rape is the exception. Nothing consensual about that, and a guy who is raping a woman won’t take the time to put a condom on. What does he care?
Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world, where people make responsible decisions and where rape is nonexistent. So, the state has to ask themselves if they are willing to provide abortion services conducted by trained doctors, or make abortion illegal, given the fact that women WILL seek abortions no matter what, thus posing a significant threat to the lives and health of women seeking “back alley” abortions because it’s illegal.
If carrying the baby to term poses a significant risk to your life and/or health, then have an abortion.
Empirical questions can be answered by observation and experiment. What do you observe in order to test the notion that a supernatural soul exists within a person?
Mathematics has matured beyond simple arithmetic, but 2+2 still belongs to that class of reasoning and no other.
I agree with the tone and (most of) conclusions of the post. It’s nice to see it all laid out there.
I absolutely agree that when personhood begins is something that we as a society have to decide—there’s no obvious answer.
But what I’m not sure of is whether an opinion motivated by a religious belief is somehow less valid than any other, and I feel that that’s part of what you were saying. If I weigh the considerations carefully and come up with personhood beginning 20 weeks into pregnancy, and someone else figures that personhood begins at conception, who am I to say that he’s wrong and I’m right?
I also think that the desire to let personhood begin at conception has a strong appeal going beyond religious consideration. Even if we were all to agree that there is no actual event which breathes personhood into an individual, there is something aesthetically unpleasant about choosing an arbitrary number of weeks into a pregnancy. The only two obviously `special’ points in a pregnancy are conception and birth. I think it is hard for people to countenance a substantial difference between the moments before and the moments after a baby exits the womb, leaving conception.
“One way they get muddied is when people with my world-view try to make it incumbent on others by saying that only a world-view that is completely naturalistic is reconcilable with the practice of science. ”
While it is certainly consistent with the PRACTICE of science to hold beliefs in immaterial, supernatural, et. al. entities, it is hardly consistent with the PRINCIPALS of science to do so. To be an empiricist about certain aspects of reality but not others is contradictory. This is not a metaphysical view but an epistemological one.
@Matt – the kidney stabber would be wrong on account of his stabbing, not on account of his refusal to donate a kidney. The analogy to pregnancy/abortion does not work. The analogy to the stabbing is sex, which is perfectly legal.
And to pick up on one specific comment:
“I would argue against them, on the basis that the interests of an autonomous and fully conscious mother should weigh much more heavily than those of the proto-person they carry. But I can’t say that they are unambiguously wrong in the same way that an erroneous claim about logic or even the empirical world can be said to be “wrong.””
It’s not central to your argument, but do you personally think there is any stage during pregnancy at which the interests of the mother no longer outweigh those of the protoperson? How do you go about forming that opinion?