An Aborted Thought

I believe I promised an in depth writing on abortion early on when I first created The Edge of Forever. I think I removed that short post when I reorganized this blog. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

I support Roe vs. Wade. I believe that abortions should not be performed except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This belief appears to be at odds with the Roe vs. Wade decision but it is not. I will explain why. Roe vs. Wade allows abortions to be performed under conditions other than the ones I stated. So why not narrow the law to only these exceptions? It would not be practically moral. I am an Idealistic Realist. I ripped this term right off the top of my head. Basically, it means I look for the Ideal situation, the best possible solution, and believe that everyone should strive toward such goals. However, I am also a Realist this means that while I believe in striving for the ideal I understand it is not always possible to apply the ideal standard to the world and get the best possible result. By applying a stricter law on abortion to fit my narrow definition of what I consider its acceptable use I would be causing others harm.

Take for instance a rape victim who is attempting to get an abortion. The victim has no evidence to prove to the doctors that she was raped and under the law is not allowed to get an abortion. She is forced to live with an uncomfortable reminder of that evil event for nine months. Practical application of the ideal through the law causes this individual harm. The ideal state of law is not to cause anyone harm and therefore such a law is immoral. One might argue that the absence of law in this case causes harm to individuals. Acknowledging that fetuses are individuals I do not believe the absence of law is the cause of the harm. As an example we must look at the ideal state of society in relation to reproductive matters. Ideally, no one would be raped and people would use protection when having intercourse or abstain entirely. The percentage of unplanned pregnancies would be extremely low if this were the case. The abortion issue in this instance would be virtually nonexistent save in the case of the mother's life versus the child.

From this concept of the ideal it is easy to see where the harm originates. Rapists and careless individuals who engage in unprotected sex and have abortions as cleanup so they can continue their careless lives. It becomes apparent that in application it is impossible to stop people from getting abortions since some would do so illegally. It is also apparent that not imposing a strict anti-abortion law keeps people like the example rape victim from suffering more harm than she is due. Knowing where the harm comes from one can understand that establishing a law, which will not stop many careless people from receiving illegal back alley abortions while compounding harm to rape victims who cannot legally get an abortion is not an ideal law. Staying consistent with the moral premise that one should strive never to cause and to minimize harm to individuals when possible, it is logical to refrain from imposing a strict anti-abortion law.

One could argue here that it is in the interest of the whole that such a strict anti-abortion law is passed and that the majority's benefit outweighs the possible harm to the minority. An example demonstrates the problem of the concept that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the few. You are a rescuer on your way to save five drowning people. As you are driving you come to a man trapped under debris in the road. If you stop to help him the five people will drown. However, due to his position in the road you will have to run over him to get to the five other people. You cannot drive around him since the edge of the road is steep and leads into a ravine. By driving over this man you would be committing the immoral act of murder.
The definition of murder is taking an individual's life against his/her will. The individual has a right to life that cannot be overridden against his/her will. This is the reason it is immoral to have a law so strict that abortions are illegal period. It is immoral to deny an abortion and cause the mother to die in cases in which her life is in jeopardy from the pregnancy. One might object by saying that it is immoral to kill the child since his/her life cannot be valued more than the mother's. In many cases in which the mother's life is in jeopardy the child will not survive birth either. In such cases this objection is a mute point since it is only possible to save the mother's life or no life.

In cases where it might be possible to save one or the other examples illustrate that abortion is acceptable. Take for instance a man who is attempting to kill another man. Is it within the second man's rights to defend himself by killing the first man? I would say yes because it is illogical for the second man to allow himself to be killed. If he were to do so then on a large scale evil would dominate everything because immoral people would kill the good and control the world without anyone being morally able to raise a finger to stop them.
In cases where an individual is harming another individual it appears to be morally acceptable to act harmfully in return because the first person must have waved his/her rights by committing it. By causing the death of its mother the fetus is relinquishing its right not to be harmed.

There is a possible distinction between the fetus and the first man. Unlike the man the fetus may not be actively willing harm to its mother but causing it nonetheless. A giant is walking around the woods one day as he normally does. As it so happens the giant is quite blind and cannot see what is below him. He happens upon a village of little folk and walks through it squashing many of them. The little folk army gathers together its most powerful weapons and kills the giant as he is making his return pass back to his home. Just like the fetus the giant is unintentionally causing harm to people. Lets say he's even a nice guy who would be horrified if he'd known what he was doing. Is it still morally wrong to kill him? I would again say no since the little folk have a right not to be squashed by giants and they didn't go and try to kill him first. The distinction of intention seems irrelevant to whether or not one can defend oneself from an individual attempting to cause oneself harm.

I believe I have satisfactorily explained my position and the reasoning behind it. If something is unclear please comment and I’ll try to do better.