Letters to the Editor
-
Saving the child is not a contradiction for pro-lifers
This hypothetical question, while thought-provoking and worth asking, does not prove that pro-lifers are wrong or inconsistent about when life begins.
To illustrate why, consider another hypothetical: A fire breaks out in a building and you can save either five rapist-murderers or one two-year-old child. Whom do you save? Most people would save the child, which demonstrates that there are situations in which one might reasonably choose to save a single human life instead of two or more other human lives. But making that choice doesn't require characterizing the rapists as non-human.
Going back to the original hypothetical, there are many reasons that one might choose to save the child over the five blastulae, even if one is firmly convinced that each of the blastulae is a human life. One might take into account that the blastulae have no consciousness, awareness, or ability to suffer. The child has all of these things, would likely suffer greatly--both physically and psychologically--in the fire, and likely has a family that would grieve its loss. Taking these facts into consideration, one would save the child on the principle that the quantity of lives saved is not the only important factor. Preventing pain and suffering is another imperative.
Looking at the abortion debate, you can see that most pro-lifers accept this logic to a certain degree. Most if not all proposed bans on abortion make an exception when the mother's life is in danger. The underlying principle here is that in such cases two lives are in jeopardy; factors such as those discussed above make it obvious why the mother's life should be preserved instead of that of the fetus.
Many people believe that abortion should be allowed only in such life-of-the-mother-versus-life-of-the-fetus cases. Others believe that abortion should also be allowed to prevent the suffering that may occur when the pregnancy threatens the woman's health (but not her life) in some way. Others think that abortion should be allowed to prevent the psychological suffering that a pregnancy might lead to, or to prevent the change in lifestyle or lowering of socioeconomic status that it might result in.
Each of these choices places a different premium on the value of saving life versus the value of preventing suffering. There is a tension between those two goals that is inherent in the abortion debate, which is why it is such a complex and intractable controversy. We may never have a perfectly satisfying answer to the dilemma. We simply have to decide what seems the most ethical and humane balance based on what we know right now.
One thing that we do know right now is that at conception a new organism is created that is alive, genetically distinct from its parents, and a member of the human species. This is a biological fact. You may argue, perhaps persuasively, that at the earliest stages of its life this being is not entitled to the rights that we accord to other human beings. But when you take the easy road and pretend that there is no dilemma, you are doing the very thing that you accuse ignorant right-wing talk radio hosts of doing: refusing to face the tough questions in favor of remaining satisfied with your current opinions.