When I listen to debate on the abortion issue, it strikes me that the most emphatic argument comes form people who hold some of the most dubious positions. Or at least positions which, if logically followed, would lead to some strange conclusions. Nor are they all on one side of the debate. In the case of abortion, there are inconsistencies on both sides.

We will leave the middle of the road out of this debate entirely, as effectively there are only two positions. Either one would allow abortion or one would not. Those who would allow abortion may differ as to how late in the pregnancy abortion is allowed, what restrictions will be applied, what access minors will have, and so on, but we will deal with those details later. The essential question is whether abortion should or should not be legal, and such binary questions leave no middle ground, either one answers yes or no¹.

Let's start with the pro-life side. Or rather the pro-choice group which calls itself pro-life, because, despite their beliefs, most pro-lifers are actually pro-choice, just with very stringent restrictions. In reality there are very few consistent pro-lifers.

Why do I say that? One simple phrase "except in the case of rape or incest". As I said before the question is whether abortion should be legal or not, and by admitting to the legality of abortion, even in very limited circumstances, takes one out of the pro-life camp. Of course, having raised this once before, I know the answer is that most pro-lifers don't really believe in those exceptions, but put them in to get laws passed. To which I reply that you don't open negotiations by making a concession to your opponent, and you do not put compromises in your platform. If you truly believe that abortion should always be illegal, then say so. You don't see NARAL arguing for limits on third trimester abortions. They ask for everything and then compromise. So I must assume those allowing the rape and incest exemption either believe it, or they are very bad negotiators.

Of course, some will argue that the exemptions are consistent with pro-life positions, that allowing abortion for rape and incest is simply compassionate, and does not violate their pro-life beliefs. However, I am afraid that makes no sense. If the argument is that a child is a person from the moment of conception, then how do the circumstances of conception justify killing that child? After the child is born, he is still the product of rape or incest, so can we kill him with impunity? If not, then why does that status justify abortion if it is otherwise illegal²?

Not that the pro-choice side is any more consistent, especially when it comes to late term abortion. The basic argument of the pro-choice side is that the fetus is not a person until some set point. The point at which the fetus becomes a person differs from person to person, but for the most part they are rather arbitrary dates, such as six months, three months, birth. There is much talk of nervous system development and ability to survive outside of the womb, but I have yet to meet anyone who proposes that a fetus is a person once it develops a functioning frontal lobe, it is always some arbitrary calendar date.

So, why do I say the pro-choice side is inconsistent? So far I have only shown that they are somewhat arbitrary in their choice of dates, not that any beliefs are inconsistent.

Well, in a past essay, I wrote at greater length about the inconsistency of fetal murder statutes and how the logic of those decisions, if carried through consistently, would support not only infanticide, but murder of children by their mothers up to the age of majority. But having already written that, I will leave that alone and refer those interested to my older essay. Instead, I will look at the specific question of justifications offered and the logical problems they pose.

As I said, the basic argument of the pro-choice side is that the fetus is not a person until some fixed date or event. And as I said before the dates bear only the most tenuous connection to the justifications provided. And what are those justifications? Most common is that the fetus in the early stages is too poorly developed to be considered a person. Others tend to justify it on more mercenary arguments that "it can't survive on its own", essentially likening a fetus to a parasite. Beyond that, especially for late term abortions, the justifications tend to drift into the pragmatic, bringing up child abuse, psychological harm, the poor prospects of teen mothers, all bolstered with copious statistics.

The first argument is the most plausible, though it does raise some troubling questions. It is arguable that to be considered human, some degree of cognitive ability is required, that one could say that before the fetus develops certain features of the nervous system it is incapable of being called human. The problem being that this raises questions about force euthanasia of the retarded as, if cognitive ability determines humanity, then why can we not kill adult beings whose cognitive faculties are no greater than that fetus? Not to mention those suffering brain damage which reduces their cognitive abilities to those of a fetus.

Then again, there is an even bigger problem. For all the talk of the fetus lacking the brain and nervous system to feel pain or qualify as a human, the laws proposed by pro-choice proponents don't fit with the reality. As the brain starts to form by three weeks, and develops fairly quickly into a complex system, for laws to match this belief, we would need to prohibit abortion after about the eighth week. However, those using this justification inevitably allow abortion through at least the end of the twelfth week, and many through the second trimester, when not only is the nervous system developed but many fetuses are viable outside of the womb. So, while the argument is semi-plausible, with some disturbing implications, it is not much more than a rationalization never followed in practice.

A slightly less plausible, if more honest explanation is that the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's body, and so were she to "evict" this "parasite" it would not survive anyway, so abortion is the only way she can be freed of this entity. It is rarely worded so plainly, but that is the essence of a variety of more euphemistically worded arguments. At the core, this argument, and the next, are based on a somewhat legalistic argument that rights don't attach until late in the process or even at birth. Unlike the nervous system argument, no rationale is provided, it is simply taken as a given that no right to life exists.It is a consistent argument, though it is rarely stated so clearly.

Instead, this argument is usually followed by the third argument for abortion, the utilitarian argument. We hear arguments about the prevalence of abuse against unwanted children, of the suffering of both child and mother in the case of teenage pregnancies and unwanted births. We hear of suicide rates and drug abuse. All sorts of sociology is brought to bear³.

The one real problem with using utilitarian arguments is that there is no way to limit such arguments⁴. Why does a right to life attach at three months? Or six months? Or at birth? If it is harmful to have to carry an unwanted child, is it not also harmful to have one around the house? What if the thought of giving it up for adoption is too painful? What prevents me from pragmatically removing the child rather than risk a bad couple adopting it? Once we allow an arbitrary cut off for the right to life, what is to prevent us from moving that date out even farther? Why not after birth? What is to prevent infanticide being justified by the same argument?

Lest anyone think I am going too far, and that no one would seriously propose infanticide, I would remind them that a presidential candidate in the present race actually spent quite a lot of political capital fighting for the right to infanticide. Obama actually went farther in his arguments than NARAL was willing to go, thinking it would be political suicide. Yet, Obama argued quite forcefully that to prevent doctors from allowing unwanted children to die of exposure was to limit a mother's right to choose.

And that really is the biggest inconsistency on the pro-choice side. They tend to portray their opponents as ignorant, superstitious religious types who are fighting for an arbitrary belief that life begins at conception, yet they themselves are just as arbitrary int he position they adopt. Sometimes they will bring out the nervous system argument, but never will they suggest that abortion should be permitted only when an MRI or ultrasound shows an incomplete nervous system. Instead, for all their supposed rationality, they adopt arbitrary cut-off dates, such as six months, or when the final bit of child leaves the birth canal.

We can see this most simply in the case of extremely late term abortions, the ones that pro-life supporters call partial birth abortions. In this case the child is almost completely delivers, but the doctor is careful to keep some of the body in the birth canal so it remains a "fetus" rather than being a child. Which is perhaps the best illustration of our confusion over abortion, the fact that if a twitch of the leg extracts the "fetus'" foot, it suddenly becomes a child. A movement of a few inches changes it from a "clump of cells" into a person fully endowed with rights.

I simply cannot make sense of such a belief.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For purposes of this argument, I am leaving aside the question of whether or not the state should actually pay for abortion. Back when I was in college the pro-choice movement made a big deal out of "safe, available and free" abortions, and took "abortion on demand" to mean abortion at state expense. I think they have realized how much of a non-starter this is with most Americans. I believe there probably still is a significant percentage of pro-choice groups which still believe in full state funding, but, for the most part, they remain quiet about this.

2. This does not apply to the question of "life of the mother" abortions, as in that case at least one party will die, if not both. As someone is going to die, choosing which will and which will live is not a violation of even the most strict pro-life position. As pro-life beliefs do not place any greater importance on the child or parent, there is no need to emphasize saving one or the other, and aborting to save the life of the mother is perfectly consistent with a pro-life position. Rather vague "well being of the mother" arguments are another matter., but with legal abortion those arguments have become much less common, mostly having been used to get around anti-abortion laws in the days before Roe v Wade.

3. Of course, I could use such figures to argue for anything. I could show how my happiness would be greatly improved were I allowed to steal without punishment. Does that justify legalizing my thefts? The fact is utilitarianism does not provide a basis for eliminating rights.

4. Science fiction writer Phillip K Dick, wrote a short story that provides an interesting take on this. Dick was politically quite liberal, often to the point of paranoia, going so far in one of his stories as to claim his friend Bishop Pike was assassinated for political beliefs. But he also had strong, if rather unorthodox, religious beliefs. In any case, he wrote a short story in which the government decreed that the soul was not present until children could perform higher mathematics, allowing abortion of unwanted children up until the age of eight or older.It is a bit silly, but it does provide an illuminating look at the rather arbitrary selection of abortion cut off dates.

----------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Obviously, I am not a fan of either side in the current debate, as both are riddled with inconsistencies. But they could be made into valid arguments, were some simple logic applied. A pro-life movement which allowed no exemptions (saving the life of the mother is not an exemption, as someone must die in such cases, so choosing mother or child is not an abortion issue, but a medical decision which must be based on available information) would be consistent and intelligible.

It is harder to justify the pro-choice side. I am sure some Objectivists will tell me that it is easy because a fetus is not a rational being (or maybe is incapable of rationality), and thus has no rights, but I would argue that that would allow us to murder the irrational among adults as well. I think the best argument is that a fetus is not yet a human being and is not possessed of the capacity for rational thought, but even that allows for some unpleasant extrapolations.

And that truly is the problem with almost any pro-choice argument, as soon as you allow that a fetus can be killed, you open the door for extrapolation from that position to analogies among older entities. And almost none of those extrapolations is anything we would want. There may be  an argument out there which does not allow for such extrapolation, but I have yet to hear it.

Basically once criteria are established for depriving one of rights based on something other than actions, the door is opened for all kinds of problems. (Which is why I am hesitant to endorse such things as involuntary commitment, or even depriving the supposedly insane of the right to contract. But more on that in a later essay.)

ADDENDUM

For those interested in legal problems raised by the question of abortion, see my older essay "Legal Schizophrenia". It is also interesting to compare this to the legal problems involved in the other end of life, espectially the right to die, as I discuss in my essay "The Right to Die".