Is it possible to defend the moral permissibility of abortion without deciding on the moral status of the human fetus?
I must begin by stating that I am a sixty-six year old man, who has been married for forty-five years. My children are grown, a daughter and a son, and we have one grandchild and hope for another. If I were in a voting booth, I would vote to support a woman’s right to choice in terminating a pregnancy , but because I am a man, I don’t think that I have much weight in this discussion. If we were sitting in a circle discussing this topic, I would probably listen closely, but not say much.
I believe that it is possible to defend the moral permissibility of abortion without deciding on the moral status of the human fetus. This is a noisy subject full of strident voices. Anger, condemnation, even violence frame the public discussion. Millions of words cloud thoughtful discourse, very few of which ring of compassion even though the decision to end a pregnancy touches the deepest of human values and emotions.
I read and re-read Chapter 6 of Dr. Singer’s book and watched each of Singer’s videos lectures and the discussions with Professor Camosy several times, honestly agreeing with both viewpoints, but unsatisfied, certain that something vital had been omitted from both arguments — the moral obligation for compassion.
Singer outlines the conflicting arguments of liberals and conservatives and offers a solution based on utilitarian logic and science. Professor Camosy offers a theological argument based on a belief in the existence of the soul. Neither takes into account the contradictory nature and complexity of human existence.
When the Dalai Lama was asked to discuss abortion he replied: “Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.”
- Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993
“But it depends on the circumstances,” contains the expectation that knowing or not knowing the moral status of the fetus may not determine whether an abortion is morally permissible in many situations because our obligation to compassion supersedes the question. Abortion is often discussed in terms of rights — the fetus’ right to life, the woman’s right to control their own body. Compassion is not a right; it is an obligation, an obligation that an individual and a society must apply to an ever changing stream of circumstances . I was surprised to find Dr. Singer discussing the trivial situation of a woman who might want to abort in order to mountain climb, yet failing to discuss the millions of possible situations in which an unwanted pregnancy would cause life-altering distress, hardship, and suffering for an individual or a family. The question of the moral permissibility of abortion can only be answered by applying our obligation to compassion within the specific circumstances of a situation.
The greatest barrier to understanding the primacy of the obligation to compassion when thinking about abortion is the language that we use to discuss the issue. George Lakoff’s early studies of metaphor and reasoning explain that our feelings and our reasonings are based on metaphors commonly held and used for everyday communication within our specific community.(Lakoff, 245) How can we think clearly about the morality of abortion - or more importantly of a particular decision to terminate a pregnancy - when the discourse begins with powerful emotionally charged metaphors?
Look at the metaphoric premises Dr. Singer points out as the primary arguments in the issue:
- A human fetus is an innocent human being.
- A human fetus is a potential human being.
- No fetus is a person … Until a fetus has some capacity for conscious experience, (it is) more like that of a plant than of a sentient animal like a dog or a cow.
Each statement draws a boundary that clearly excludes a compassionate assessment of individual circumstance. To reduce the fetus to a plant, is to enrage those who believe in the soul. To metaphorically speak of the fetus is an innocent child, excludes all compassion for the woman and/or family that will suffer greatly unless the pregnancy is terminated.
So, yes, if we accept the moral primacy of the obligation to compassion for all involved - the woman, the family, the community - we can defend the moral permissibility of abortion without deciding on the moral status of the human fetus. The question of the moral permissibility of abortion can only be answered by applying our obligation to compassion within the specific circumstances of a situation.