Property and Abortion

"Oh well, I've changed my mind ..."

Putting Proper back in “Property” – Part 17

No matter what the era or the culture, the issue of abortion is at or near the top of the “Most Controversial” list.  My analysis of this topic will, of course, be rooted on the fact that we all own our bodies.

The reason that this issue is so divisive and tricky is that, for various reasons, the question of when an individual body comes into being is by no means that upon which we are unanimously agreed.  The religious among us, especially fundamentalist Christians, apparently believe that individuation occurs at the moment of conception.  And when is this?  Is this when the man gets a twinkle in his eye (for his wife, lover, girlfriend, rape victim)?  Is it immediately upon ejaculation during intercourse?  Is it some minutes or hours later, when the sperm joins with the egg?

Millions of people, whether Christians or not, believe that once the egg and sperm have joined – i.e. impregnation has occurred – the human being is on the way … there is a fetus.  The relevant question is: Does this fetus have the full rights of personhood: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Here comes my bold assertion: a person does not exist until physical individuation has occurred.  This clearly happens at the moment, just after birth, when the umbilical cord is severed.  Can a newborn baby fend for itself?  Of course not.  This is typically not possible until a child reaches the age of 5 years or more (under extreme, primitive, or tragic circumstances) … but preferably not until he/she is 18 or 21.

So, to jump ahead to my conclusion, I believe that abortion should be legal … in other words, not punishable by law.  Abortion is not murder.  There is no legal victim.

That being said, abortion is STILL controversial.  To most of us, the decision to abort a fetus is a sad, perhaps tragic, event.  There is a cost, and that is an utterly personal domain.  Is abortion a good and sensible solution to a problem?  Yes, when the mother’s life is in danger.  Yes, when it is known (by careful and proper medical science) that the fetus is undergoing malformation, and that it would never be a viable candidate for healthy human life.

Is abortion a good solution when the mother (and father) use it as hindsight birth control?  Perhaps not.  I know hundreds of men and women who are still sad about using abortion in that fashion.  Is there a better way to go about birth control?  Of course.

Why is abortion still used?  Simple – usually minor (or young professional) women do not believe that they could be properly responsible for raising a child.  And, they are usually correct!  The men that knocked them up are usually not mature enough, or committed enough, to step forward and claim responsibility alongside their partners.  Of course, in the Age of Promiscuity, “partner” might mean somebody that we just met a few hours ago.

The basic fact is this: abortion is here to stay.  The rational goal for a healthy society is to cut this solution to its minimal proper use … saving the lives of mothers whose lives are in danger … and ending unviable lives of malformed fetuses (as early as this condition can be determined).  For all other situations, better up-front contraception and discretion are recommended, and, when possible, giving the newborn up for adoption.

Special Case

I want to mention here a case that runs contrary to the popular “Women’s Rights” canon of the Pro Choice Movement, which states that abortion is always the woman’s right.  So far in this article, there has been an unstated assumption: the woman wants an abortion, and the man is in agreement.  What if the two “lovers” are not in accord?  What then?

Consider a case of a man and a woman (both of majority) who agree to conceive of a child and to raise it as their own.  In this case, I am assuming that there are no physical or health issues, and that the fetus is forming properly.  The woman decides, for whatever reasons (aesthetic, professional, emotional), to abort the fetus.  Does she have a right to do this unilaterally?  No – she does not!  She is obliged to consult with her mate and ask him his views.  She might convince him that because she is not really up to the task, he should let go of their conception to begin (or grow) their family.  In 99 out of 100 of such scenarios, he would probably say, “Gosh, it’s a pity, but I agree.  Go ahead and abort.”

If the man really wants to proceed though – to have the child, the woman is morally obliged to carry the fetus to term, have the child, and to give it to him as sole parent.  Of course, that would be a big responsibility on her part, but in this hypothetical I made it clear that she gave her word (as did he) to conceive and give birth to a child.  They have a contract – a shared property.  His huge responsibility is to support her, comfort her, and financially make it possible for her to fulfill her side of the bargain.  Finally, when he becomes a “single” parent to a newborn, he may not expect anything further from her.  He must release her of all liability and responsibility in terms of parenting.

Would this be a smart move on the man’s part?  No.  He would be an idiot to choose that course of action.  Nevertheless, in a world of 6.5 billion people, strange cases come up, and I wanted to cover how this special case ought to be handled.