In the debate about abortion, those who call themselves pro-life and those who call themselves pro-choice agree that healthy newborns have a right to life. However, the two sides differ importantly about the right to life of the unborn. Pro-life advocates typically claim that the unborn has this right from the moment of fertilization, whereas advocates of choice deny the right until a later period in gestation.
Science supports the unborn’s right to life in several ways. The unborn is alive from the moment of fertilization, as the single cell resulting from fertilization quickly starts to divide. It also has its own, distinctively human genetic code. We know that if it successfully implants on the endometrium several days after fertilization, it will probably become a healthy newborn with a right to life, unless abortion intervenes. Finally, although different names are given to the unborn at different stages of gestation – blastocyst, embryo, fetus – the course of development from fertilized egg to birth is continuous, so any line marking the beginning of a right to life during gestation is arbitrary. If newborns have a right to life, so do the unborn from the moment of fertilization.
Proponents of abortion rights also cite facts that support their view. Continuous development doesn’t eliminate lines of demarcation among rights-holders. People develop continuously after birth, but we don’t conclude that if 25-year-olds can vote, so can five-year-olds. Second, a distinctively human genetic code is important because it indicates the probable development of distinctively human capabilities, the most important of which is the power of reason. This power is associated with the cerebral cortex, which doesn’t develop until the latter stages of the third trimester. Before that time, the human unborn has a heartbeat and reacts to stimuli, but these traits are shared with non-human animals that lack a right to life.
Pro-life advocates counter that, due to its human genome, the human unborn has the potential for developing distinctively human traits from the moment of fertilization. Pro-choicers reply that potential isn’t usually sufficient for conferring rights. Many people have the potential to fly commercial airliners, but they don’t have a right to fly us around before they’ve been trained and licensed. Pro-lifers reject this analogy. Potential pilots must choose the required training, whereas brain development is automatic and natural among healthy unborns. This justifies treating the fetus as already having the mind that it will eventually develop. Pro-choice advocates reply to this that we don’t let five-year-olds vote even though they will just as naturally and automatically develop the requisite qualifications.
Both sides have many more arguments and rejoinders, but the bottom line remains – the right to life of the unborn early in gestation can’t be decided by evidence or argument. Yet it’s a matter of life and death. What should we do? I suggest that we look at the history of a different unresolvable conflict.
Crucial disagreements, unresolvable by evidence or argument, beset Europe during the Reformation. The Catholic Church claimed that it possessed the sole authority to determine the path to eternal bliss in heaven, whereas Protestants promoted direct appeal to the Bible. The Church conducted seven sacraments, whereas Luther recognized only two. The Church stressed works, the Protestants faith as the key to God’s favor. Each side had good arguments resting on scripture, logic, and tradition. The stakes couldn’t be higher – eternal life in heaven or eternal damnation in hell.
After two or three centuries persecuting one another, tolerance eventually prevailed. Protestants could live unmolested in France and Catholics gained civil liberties in England. Everyone was given the right to be wrong.
But how does this apply to abortion, where being wrong could mean killing a human being with a right to life? Here’s the key. Each side during the Reformation was certain that the other side was leading people to a fate worse than death – eternal damnation. When opposite certainties persist on a crucial issue that can’t be decided by evidence or argument, the only solution is tolerance, personal certainty notwithstanding.
Tolerance, however, doesn’t seem neutral in the abortion debate; it favors pro-choice over pro-life because it allows individuals to choose for themselves. This asymmetry results from the fact that no one is pro-abortion the way that most of us are pro-literacy. We want increased literacy. Pro-choicers don’t want increased abortions. If they did, tolerance would affect the two sides equally, as pro-abortion advocates would bristle at pro-lifers' impeding abortions. But this isn't our situation. Most pro-choicers are happy to work with pro-lifers to reduce the number of abortions women choose to have, such as with family leave policies and other measures.
It’s understandably difficult to tolerate what you’re certain is a horrible crime. But the history of the Reformation suggests that this is the only viable path when arguments on two sides of a vital issue are equally persuasive, even if they aren’t equally persuasive to you.
See my Abortion Rights as Religious Freedom at barnesandnoble.com or at tupress.temple.edu. You can respond at peterswenz.com.
Comments