Polarizing the Abortion Debate

The debate on abortion in the UK was thrown into the limelight at the beginning of this month after backbench Tory MP Nadine Dorries, initially with the backing of former Labour minister Frank Field (who later withdrew his support), raised an amendment aimed at stopping abortion providers also providing councilling for fear of vested interests. 

Although the ammendment was heavily defeated (folllowing concern about the ‘independance’ of Christian Pro Life groups providing counselling on abortion instead and the realisation that a lot of Dorries criticisms for the current system were entirely unfounded) the debate still lingers on in public consciousness and in mine.

I’m not going to go into the conventional arguments of the debate in great depth or else this will become obscenely long and besides it’s been covered well elsewhere.

What I am going to discuss is the unhelpful nature of the polarization of the debate into two very opposing sides and one of my own recent theoretical explorations into the debate that cuts across both sides; pro-choice and pro-life.

It was actually I blog post I stumbled across on The Conservative Blog (not as in the UK political party but an independant blog by those in the UK and USA of a Conservative political persuasion) that started this off for me.

The author begins an argument against allowing abortion by critisicing recent opinions he has seen floating around twitter and this one caught my eye:

Tweet:  “I’m a lot more sympathetic to the idea that meat is murder than the idea that abortion is.”

Author’s response: “Uh… wow. Okay?”

Now, as you may have gathered from previous blogs of mine, I am very pro animal rights and have grave concerns about the treatment of animals used in food production.  So it stood out for me that an animal rights argument was not deemed even worthy of a response.  It does seem that those who are concerned by what is mostly unecessary pain caused to living creatures when they are kept and killed for food are deemed to be part of an irrational,  extreme left wing group not worth debating with.  Which I feel opitimises the problem of animal rights; that no one is willing to engage in debate on the issue as they like eating meat and prefer to be in denial than to have to defend their actions rationally or morally.   But for now that is another issue.

Naturally then this part of the article immediately got my back up so I read on.  You can see my comments still waiting, unanswered, at the end of the article so I won’t go into my reasoning on why actually it seems to me perfectly logical that it would be easier to see the argument against eating meat at least as much if not more than the arguments against abortion.

Where this article took me in terms of the abortion debate however is through an analysis of many arguments against abortion and from that a clearer understanding of my own views.

The thing that really struck me and made me interested in this was how little I had really, truly thought about this issue.  I suddenly came to the realisation that up until now the main, underlying reason I am pro choice is because I identify as being a feminist and on the left side of politics and these two identities generally both identify as being in the ‘pro-choice’ camp and not the ‘pro-life’ camp.

This is an issue for me for two reasons.   The first and most obvious being I believe it is important to constantly challenge your own beliefs and those of others so together you can improve your thoughts on a subject and move closer to the truth if there is one or at least towards personal clarity of thought.  This is a never ending process and no idea should be held lightly.

The second though was the realisation that this is exactly the problem with the abortion debate.  You are either pro-choice or you are pro-life.  There is no middle ground.  No side can give way in any fight because it will lead to losing the war.  There is no compromise, there is no working together. 

But more on this later.  For now bear with me, I will continue with the path thinking about abortion in terms of my own views on animal rights took me and how this took me to a realisation about why polarising the debate isn’t helpful.

Following my own logic on the animal rights and relating it to the abortion argument in response to this article I realised that the same argument really applied to both debates for me.  My view on animal rights, in an grossly oversimplified nutshell, is that having fundamental rights should be based on whether or not a creature has interests relating to that right. A core interest is the interest in not suffering i.e. the idea that for living creatures suffering is a negative feeling that they desire to avoid.  Therefore intentionally causing physical suffering is wrong as the creature has a strong,  conscious interest in that not happening. 

This approach, I believe, is the only basis for fundamental rights that does not rule out from having rights the severely mentally handicapped or the very young like arguments based on ability to have rational thoughts, ability to form societies, capacity to make decisions and so on can do. 

It also avoids making spurious exclusions such as the theoretical potential to have rational thought or make independent decisions as an argument for including the mentally handicapped and infants in the basic rights and not animals. 

But if you follow the idea that interests and the ability to suffer are what qualify you for basic rights then you cannot exclude animals.  Nor, I realise, can you necessarily automatically exclude fetuses.

Now this is where it gets more tricky.  It very easy to prove that pigs, cows, chickens etc feel pain. It is more challenging to identify if a fetus feels pain, or more importantly at what stage in development a fetus both physically is able to respond to stimuli and also interpret this stimuli as something markedly unpleasant.    This issue is outlined very well in this article which discusses different theories and science involved in identifying suffering to a fetus caused by abortion.

Therefore surely an abortion will be at the least morally questionable and at most morally wrong at the point at which the fetus can feel and recognise pain as a result of an abortion.  If it can recognise and react negatively to pain then it has an interest in not feeling pain and thus an interest, on a basic level, of not being aborted.   We cannot say it has an interest in being alive because that probably does not develop until well past birth. Much as I would not necessarily (i do not know enough on the subject to have a definite opinion yet) argue animals have an interest in living, in terms of thinking they would like more years on this earth to complete more goals – that is a human conception.  They do however have an interest in not suffering and it is the suffering we cause in their slaugher (and upbringing in the case of most livestock) that is wrong.

Thus abortions should be legal only within a time limit at which point the fetus is not yet developed enough to recognise and react negatively to pain.  This would be something for impatial medical experts to investigate and decide upon but based on the article above would likely not be unsimilar to the current limit.

Following this line of logic through it therefore also debuncts many of the classic arguments against allowing any form of abortion.

Take for example the argument that that a fetus is a potential life and thus qualifies for the same rights as an actual living creature.   It is as spurious as the arguments for potential for rational thought.  Sperm is a potential life but some more hard core Christians and Monty Python characters aside there are few calls on the ‘wasting’ of that to be made illegal and akin to murder.

Or the argument that the fetus becomes a life on conception.  On what basis?  On the basis of it’s potential to be a living creature? I’ve already argued against this as a valid basis for rights.  On the basis of the scientific definition of life as defined by the Conservative Blog article?

“A living thing is defined as any metaphysical entity which exhibits the processes of homeostasis (the ability of an organism to regulate its internal state), metabolism (the ability of an organism to process and utilize energy), growth (the ability of an organism to turn energy into biological components), and response (the ability of an organism to respond to external stimuli)”

Well that being the case then swatting and killing a fly could not be ruled out as morally wrong, while with an argument based on an interest in not suffering it could.

I’m not saying all arguments do not have their flaws and challenging circumstances.  However an argument based on interests to my mind makes the most convincing case for a rational inclusion of beings in rights and tailors rights to different beings needs, for example giving human children the basic rights and rights of protection they so need without more independant, ‘adult’ rights such as the right to vote which would be impractical.

It could also potentially achieve a balance of the concerns of the two sides. 

The pro-choice side of the arguement is not, despite what certain favourite right wing comentators may suggest, pushing for more abortions but simply in favour of giving women control over their own bodies.

It is easy to argue that a mother has an interest in controlling her own body and her own reproduction to avoid the potential unwanted emotional, physical, financial and otherwise devastation an unwanted pregnancy might involve.  Where the fetus cannot yet be said to have any interests or rights then there is no real conflict of interests and thus the choice should be open to the woman to do however she sees fit and the support should be there no matter what she decides.

For me the only time this freedom of choice that the pro-choice (again not “pro abortion”) side could be brought into question is when there is a conflict of interests and this could only come when a fetus was fully developed enough to be considered to have rights.  So in this case who’s rights would triumph?

Here I believe it is the most rational and compassionate to think of rights in an order of importance.  This is just by way of a clear example and not to say that either being in this is unimportant nor that any woman would take the decision to abort a fetus lightly.  For example if we took the right to life, where there is an interest in life, to be paramount then if the mothers life was at risk her right to life and to avoid suffering would come before the fetuses right to avoid suffering.  Or in the case of rape the suffering of the mother on having the child would likely be greater in its psychological seriousness and her comprehension than the suffering of the fetus. However if the mother cannot financially support a child but could give it up for adoption then the suffering of the fetus could be argued to outweigh the mothers concerns. 

This is obviously more complicated than making a list and following it through but is just to give you an idea of the thinking for the purpose of this discussion, really more times needs to be dedicated to dealing with conflicts in rights as this is an issue that is important to various other important issues in our society as well (the smoking ban, religious tolerance, immigration to name but a few).

This argument therefore partially supports some of the arguments from the pro-life side of the debate in that it purports the idea that fetuses have the right not to be aborted in some circumstances.    However the importance is in looking at the practical detail; in other words identifying at what point a fetus really would experience pain in the sense we understand the word.  Therefore it would not rule out abortions before this point.  The exact timing is something that could really only be discovered by medical professionals however with the state the debate is currently in if my argument lead to pressure for a decrease in the length of time in which abortions can be performed this would automatically put me in the pro-life camp.

I noticed this problem a lot when reading around the subject of Nadine Dorries’ proposals; the debate seems to be quite polarised.   Wanting a reduction in the time limits on abortion means you ultimately want to ban all abortions.  Being pro-choice means you actively want woman to abort fetuses wherever and whenever possible.

I’m not saying Nadine Dorries does not have links to Christian groups who have openly admitted their ‘end game’ as it were is to ban abortions and to achieve this by slow alterations to public perceptions and the law.  But there does seem to be a general under current in the media, and i believe there certainly was in my thinking previously, that you are either wholly on one side or another and I do not believe it is healthy.

I also share the concern of many on the pro-life side that the number of abortions has risen in the last few years and is highest among women aged 19 and 20.   That does not mean i am against abortion or feel the solution is to ban abortions as a way of reducing the numbers.  Apart from anything else evidence shows that restrictions on legal abortions do not really reduce the number of abortions taking place. 

What we do need is more sex education to reduce the amount of abortions that could have been avoided with better use of contraception, however many they may be.  Ideas like those also of Nadine Dorries and others on the pro-life side of the debate about promoting abstinence in girls probably won’t help reduce the rate of teenage pregnancies or abortion not to mention will instead enforce sexual stereotypes, but that’s a whole other debate.

We should be able to take on board points from both side of the debate to improve the situation for women and fetusus rather than sticking only the stock position of our camp and staunchly going no where.

So my conclusion from all this?

Being pro-choice is not about being pro-abortion but about wanting the real women who’s bodies we are discussing to be theirs to decide about, whatever they decide.  We need the advice, support and knowledge to be available for both at the time of an unwanted pregnancy and before to try an avoid the situation where possible all together.  

That said while that does not mean the fetus should not be considered.  While the arguements that all potential life or life in the strictest scientific terms do not hold great sway because they are either to all encompassing or to abstract I do believe that an argument based on interests and suffering is  a logical and moral one when considering what rights a fetus might have and therefore what must be taken into account on their behalf when debating abortion.

Finally on a moregeneral note it is always important to challenge and access, re-challenge and re-assess your own assumptions on everything and encouters with opposing opinions are key to this.  Bearing that in mind I welcome all comments and discussion points, different angles and ideas and aim to respond to all comments so please don’t be shy.