On the Question of Life
The pro-life effort may soon have to shift its focus from legal to moral arguments, and no question is more fraught than considering where life truly begins.
Scott Howard studies political science and journalism at the University of Florida.
With the seemingly impending overturning of Roe, the abortion debate has risen to the front and center of the national conversation. On the Right, Roe’s demise has become cause for both exuberant celebration (i.e., myself) and, for some, nervous handwringing as to what comes next.
While I am of the opinion that those conservatives who refuse to cheer on Roe’s end are wrong in their approach, I agree with the overarching message that we as a movement must be ready to articulate what comes next. That message begins and ends with one fundamental question, one which pro-lifers must be willing to ask over and over until our opponents provide an answer: where does life begin?
For pro-lifers, the answer is clear: at conception. But the Left, by and large, refuses to answer this question, so it is hard to compare what the options are. It is my position, which I will attempt to lay out here, that there are three logically viable answers to that question.
The first position, which I have already listed, is that life begins with conception. This position holds up the best of the three from a purely biological standpoint. Once conceived, that fetus is going to be, barring something tragic, a living, breathing child in nine months. It is not a “potential” life. It is life actualized.
If you believe this, as the vast majority of pro-lifers do, then all abortions are, in the abstract, murder. That is not to say there should not be exceptions made from a policy standpoint (most pro-lifers, including myself, happily agree that there should be rape, incest, and mother’s life exceptions). But from a purely principled standpoint, abortion is the end of a life, no matter the circumstance.
The belief that life begins at birth is the next logically consistent position. Here the argument that a fetus is merely a potential life, or as many put it, just a “clump of cells,” finds its logical endpoint. It is also, to any rational observer, a morally indefensible position.
If one believes this, then they must logically approve of abortions until birth, which begs the question: why does moving 20 inches in one direction change that clump of cells into a human life with rights of its own? What magical properties does the birthing canal have that confers life?
Most rational human beings would agree that getting an abortion a week before your due date carries significant moral weight unless it’s one of the exceptions listed above. That is why, when asked, pro-choicers refuse to answer when life begins. They understand, at their core, that saying life begins at birth is not morally defensible.
The third position, something of a compromise here, is that life begins at the first heartbeat. While I find this position dubious (given its arbitrary distinctions on a case-by-case basis), from a policy standpoint, it is entirely defensible. Logically, the belief that life begins when the heart starts beating makes sense on the surface. My only question for those who believe this, or something similar (i.e., anyone who thinks abortion should stop after X amount of weeks) is this: why that specific week? Heartbeat is a tricky thing to determine. It changes based on the individual. Why is that week special?
I am sure I’ve glossed over some nuance in these positions, but the crux of each argument is as I’ve described above. I don’t know what comes next, but it’s important to fully understand every position on the table and go from there. For pro-lifers such as myself, especially, it is vitally important that we understand what we are arguing for and against, because how we handle the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe will go a long way in determining our success.
 | A guest post by
|
In my view, viewing life as beginning at birth has serious problems given that it's disconnected from the scientific evidences of life in the womb. Not only heartbeat but brain activity, unique DNA, reaction to outside stimulae, and viability outside of the womb all point to a distinct life deserving legal protection.
On the other hand, while I personally view life as beginning at conception for both moral and religious reasons, there is a distinct moral incongruity in carving out exceptions for rape and incest. If a fertilized egg is considered human life, why is such human life to be protected or not protected based on the circumstances of its creation? Opponents of the "life begins at conception" viewpoint point out, not without reason, that if a fertilized egg can be disposed of without concern for its existence as distinct human life because it was created through rape or incest then why should women who are unable to provide for a child or who have gotten pregnant through poor decisions not also be able to dispose of a fertilized egg.
I think the question of life in the womb is likely to lead to three realities. First, abortions after the 1st trimester will come to be fully outlawed in almost all states with exceptions only for the health of the mother. Second, there will be an ongoing debate about the definition of viability and most states will adopt laws that define viability variously and outlaw abortions after that point is met. And third, the question of life before viability is likely to remain an open question because it is a question largely of moral and religious debate. Some states will be absolute in their abortion restrictions, others will allow unrestricted abortion until viability, and some will split the issue by allowing morning after pills but not procedural abortion.
I think the question of when life begins is the wrong one to ask.
Take any animal, insect, or other non-human being for example. It certainly has a life by all three of these definitions. Yet, unless we are to become vegetarians all, we agree that the simple fact that they are alive does not confer them with rights.
The question we should instead ask is when rights attach. Because at this point, the fetus is morally indistinguishable from any other human being in terms of its right to life.
This question can easily lead down a rabbit hole of ethics discourse, but I think we can easily chart the two component questions of when rights attach to humans:
1) What differentiates humans from other living beings in such a manner that we are granted different moral value?
2) When in the gestation process is the earliest that this is likely to occur (erring on the side of over-inclusion to limit the likelihood of rights violations should our scientific understanding be incorrect).
To avoid boiling the ocean, I'll err on the side of being overly simplistic in my answer. In my opinion:
1) The prime differentiator between humans and other living beings is the depth of our sentience. While any other fauna can use its brain to execute directives in order to sustain its own life and the continuation of its species, humans are either alone or among a very small number of animals that have a serious sense of self-awareness.
2) It's unclear when this happens, but the earliest that it is likely to happen is when the fetus reaches pain capability, or the ability to process various stimuli such as pain. This is important because the ability to respond to stimuli is required in order to be sentient. Based on the body of existing research, this occurs - at earliest - when the brain stem attaches around 14-21 weeks. Again, erring on the side of over-inclusion, we should assume the fetus would then reach pain capability - and therefore meet the conditions that grant it the higher moral status that humans are granted - at 14 weeks post-conception.
While I do not hold on strongly to the 14 week mark, It is significant because it the best approximation that we can reach for when a human is sufficiently different from any other living creature that it is granted the right to life. I am certainly open to changing from this position, I find the use of when life begins to be the least compelling path to an answer that doesn't place man on the same moral plane as the cattle I eat for dinner.
Note: one potential counterargument is that we indeed are granted the same moral agency as animals, and that we are simply the apex predator. I do not believe this to be a valid one as we accept intra-species killing between animal species over status or procreation rights etc, but obviously should not accept that I can kill you in order to have children with your wife, or kill the mayor of my town in order to claim the throne.
Lastly, I am aware that my position likely necessitates granting the right to life to certain apes, and potentially some marine life such as dolphins and/or octopi. I'm fully comfortable with this and don't see any logical consequences that would be dissonant or absurd.