Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Abortion and same-sex marriage are different, separate from stealing and from each other. Stealing is a generally-acknowledged evil: civilization can't work if theft is okay. Even the simplest utilitarian moral logic says that stealing is bad. Whereas the other two issues, it's more complicated.

Let me talk about same-sex marriage first.

The common ethic of the culture of the USA combines utilitarianism and libertarianism.

Here let me put forward the utilitarian part:

1. Life is good.
2. Therefore, that which preserves and reinforces life is good, and
3. That which weakens or destroys life is bad.

Now, the libertarian part.

1. Human freedom is good.
2. Therefore, that which preserves and reinforces freedom is good, and
3. That which weakens or destroys freedom (government) is bad.

Sometimes, each of these is in conflict with itself: for example, if life is good, then gangrene is great, right? Well, no. Gangrene is a harmful manifestation of life that, unfortunately, must be culled to prevent it from causing a large net loss of life. If you impale your hand on a spike and the wound begins to rot, you're better off getting your hand cut off than dying of blood poisoning.

Sometimes, these two are in conflict with each other: for example, if freedom is good, then nobody should stop me from building bombs in my driveway, right? Well, no. The thing about bombs is that they spread destruction indiscriminately. It would be difficult or impossible for me to build and maybe play with bombs in my driveway, without endangering the health or lives of others (plus their property).

The major force constraining human behavior by force is government, by the way. According to libertarian thought, government is bad. However, even the most ardent libertarian will recognize that security of life and freedom requires that there be some restriction of freedom - paradoxical, ain't it? - to prevent what might otherwise be a peaceful anarchic commune from degenerating into violent chaos, and then into feudalism.

So the government philosophy should be, "The state should allow people to do what they want, and not discriminate between people or groups (this being an unwarranted restriction on freedom), unless the state has a compelling interest (where injury to persons or severe damage to or annihilation of property is likely) in doing otherwise."

The argument to conservatives is as follows: Yes, there is such a thing as sacramental marriage, and there is such a thing as civil marriage, which is secular; secular matters should be handled by the state, which means that the privileges of civil marriage may be extended to couples you don't approve of - but hell, doesn't that happen already with perfectly heterosexual couples in Vegas? And we can still have marriage as a sacrament and decide, in our religious institutions, which couples' civil marriages we will honor as a sacrament, and which we will not. The state will not interfere. It may not, it's banned from doing so by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now, abortion is a funny thing. I don't mean amusing, I mean peculiar.

Let's start with pregnancy. Pregnancy is, of course, the phenomenon that starts when a zygote successfully implants on the uterine lining and, typically, ends with a live birth some forty weeks later. During that time, the embryo, which is later known as a fetus, is wholly dependent on the mother for all its needs: it needs oxygen, which it gets from her blood. It needs sugars and fats, which it gets from her blood. It needs proteins and vitamins and metals, which it gets from her blood. It needs to expel carbon dioxide and nitrogenous wastes, which go into her blood. If the provision of blood is attenuated or severed, the fetus is weakened or killed. Right?

But it is also exclusively dependent on the mother. What I mean by this is, well, look at this. Imagine I am holding a baby. Now, I am male, but I can still take care of a baby, even if its mother can't. How? Well, babies need food - which can be packaged; babies need warmth - which can be provided by anyone with a suitable blanket or baby garment; babies need to be cleaned - which anyone with a small tub or even a large sink can do; babies need to be talked to, petted, cuddled and played with, which anyone can do, if he has the time and energy. A baby is wholly dependent on its caretaker or caretakers, but not exclusively. It can't fend for itself, but anyone can take care of it. Whereas for a fetus, only the woman in whose womb it is growing can provide for it.

This is the basis of the bodily ownership argument for allowing abortion: a woman should be allowed to choose either to allow the use of her body by another entity (e.g., she wishes to have a child) or to disallow the use of her body. That the fetus will die if she decides not to allow it to use her body is perhaps regrettable, but it must not be imposed upon her. In the same way, if you become terribly ill and need continuous donations of tissue, like blood, or else you will die, and I am the only person who is histologically compatible with you, then it is entirely up to me whether I allow you to make use of my body. If I choose to allow you to make use of my body, wonderful, you will probably live to see another day. If I choose not to, well, I'm sorry. It's regrettable, but you're doomed. And even if I give my consent at first, I can revoke my consent at any time, pull the needles supplying you with sustenance out of my arm, and go on my way. It dooms you, again, but... too bad.

Now the health argument.

Pregnancy is not safe. In fact, it comes with a significant risk of a host of problems, ranging from metabolic disorders to rectovaginal fistula to hemorrhage and death, and the changes in body chemistry experienced during and immediately after pregnancy can lead to dangerously unbalanced behavior, such as murder or suicide.

I think you will agree that any woman has a right, as a human being, to seek medical treatment, and to be treated according to the best judgment of the attending physician or specialist. However, if we criminalize certain medical decisions, then several things will happen at once.

First, as has always been the case, making something illegal does not stop it but merely drives it underground, where it cannot be regulated for safety. Rich people desiring abortion will still find a way to get abortions - either traveling abroad, or finding a private licensed doctor in the same country who'll do it discreetly, for a lot of money. Poor people's best options will be to find an unlicensed hack who'll only charge something they can afford; other solutions include home-brew abortions such as forcible insertion of objects like broomsticks or, classically, coat hangers, or douching with caustic substances such as bleach, battery acid or lye. These have a high likelihood of causing catastrophic injury, not just ending the pregnancy but the woman's ability to ever bear a child again, or ending her life entirely; if she survives, she may be left with crippling or terribly humiliating wounds for which, I should add, she would not be able to seek treatment, lest she be charged with a crime. (By the way, many women do currently use these home-brew methods, and do incur horrific injury to themselves, costing the rest of us lots of money in higher taxes and insurance premiums, because of an apparent need for abortion and lack of access to it.)

Second, for people making legitimate visits to the obstetrician, the obstetrician may be hesitant to prescribe an abortion for legally allowed reasons, e.g., because the mother's life is endangered by pregnancy. After all, if he turns out to be wrong, he gets punished. If he was right but doesn't manage to convince the arm of government tasked with enforcing abortion law of the reasoning, he gets punished. So he's less likely to prescribe abortion even in cases where it is medically necessary, leading to needless injury or death.

Third, the cost of being an obstetrician and the cost of visiting one would go up very sharply. Obstetricians would have to bear the cost of law-enforcement supervision, the cost of registering and tracking every pregnancy of every woman patient, and the cost of performing examinations (currently believed to be unnecessary) to detect whether or not the women coming to see them have had abortions, should a pregnancy end in any way other than a live birth. Apart from the risk of falsely accusing women who've miscarried of having had abortions, of course, this cost will put many obstetricians out of business (they don't make a lot of money compared to expenses as is, given the cost of malpractice insurance due, in large part, to frivolous but successful lawsuits). Furthermore, those obstetricians remaining in business will have to sharply raise their fees in order to stay in business, making their services harder to afford for ordinary law-abiding women who desire to bear their pregnancies to term, and thereby endangering their lives and those of their fetuses! Pregnancy counseling and prenatal care are not trivial needs, but if we make them too expensive, then we end up with women and infants being needlessly harmed.

So for purposes of minimizing the harm that comes to anyone, abortion should be allowed.

[Further edit:

Let me pull out a Bible here... but first, some logical background.

Let us define abortion: abortion is intentionally causing miscarriage, through any means. (Miscarriage meaning the death of the unborn child.)
Let us define murder: murder is the intentional killing of another human being, through any means, without approval of justly constituted authority.
Let us assume that abortion is equivalent to murder.
Let us contrast murder with negligent manslaughter, the accidental killing of another human being.
Conclusion: if deliberately killing someone without sanction of authority is murder, and if accidentally killing someone is negligent manslaughter, and if abortion is the same as murder, accidentally causing miscarriage is negligent manslaughter.

So far so good.

Let's see what the Bible has to say about murder: Let's see... Numbers 35:20-21. "If he with hatred smote or threw upon another [with a weapon], so that he died, or with enmity struck with his hand, so that he died, the one who struck shall surely die, for he is a murderer. The avenger of the blood shall kill the murderer on meeting him." Okay? If you deliberately strike someone, attack him with a weapon or hurl an object at him and cause him to die, you are a murderer and liable for death. See also 35:30 (with two witnesses, a court may execute the murderer).

Compare with Numbers 35:22-25. "If he suddenly thrust at him without enmity, or threw upon him any object or stone such that he died, without enmity and without seeing him, yet it fell upon him and he died - and he was not an enemy and did not seek to do evil - then the congregation shall adjudicate between he who struck and the avenger according to these rules: the congregation shall save the killer from the avenger, and they shall take him to a city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with sanctified oil."

Okay? So the punishment for murder is death, and the punishment for negligent homicide is exile to a city of refuge.

Therefore, if murder and abortion are equivalent, then accidentally causing a miscarriage should be punished by exile and deliberately causing a miscarriage should be punished by death. And if the punishment for either deliberate or accidental infliction of miscarriage is not death or exile, respectively, then murder and abortion are not equivalent.

Let's see what the Bible has to say about accidentally causing a miscarriage in Exodus 21:22-25. "If men fight against each other, and should wound a pregnant woman, so she miscarries but suffers no injury, he [who struck her] shall pay a fine levied upon him by the woman's husband; and he shall pay it as the judges determine. But if there is injury, then it is a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, and a welt for a welt." In other words, if your only crime against her is causing her to miscarry, he who struck her pays a monetary fine.

Hmm... You know, a monetary fine is the penalty in the Bible for destruction of property, not destruction of life.

The only thing we can conclude, therefore, is that the Bible considers the unborn child the property of its father. And since Biblical law contains no prohibition on a person destroying his own property, and a person may appoint an agent to do his bidding for any act which is not contrary to Biblical law, we must conclude that a person may appoint an agent to destroy his unborn child without penalty, provided the agent does not harm the mother.

Of course, in this modern age, we believe that women too are capable of owning property and asserting their rights of ownership.]