The Morality of a Person’s Choice to Destroy Another Human Life

[Jim Baker]

The discussion topic about the death penalty stirred up a question I have been struggling with for many years that I hope is not deemed innappropriate or too controversial for this Community.

Something I don't understand is that often people who decry capital punishment as being violent, contrary to a person's right to life and considered a cruel and inhumane method of destroying people's lives are often the same people who are in favor of abortion rights.

I don't actually know the specific positions of anyone in this community so I speak only from what I have experienced elsewhere.

I know there is much debate over even whether to call it a fetus or a baby that are related to the viability outside of the mother's womb. Regardless of what it is called, I think there is no question that early on it has human circulatory and central nervous systems that are distinct and functioning and that up until the moment of its first breath of air it relies on the mother for basic life support. From the moment of conception, barring any complications, it contains DNA structure that is programmed to produce a human being. Also, there are bio-chemical changes that occur during the development that allows for the mother to continue to provide its basic nutritional needs for many months after the baby is able to be viable outside of the womb so it is not completely independent or self sufficient for quite sometime after it is born.

Some parents might even say it may take more than 20 years for it to become self sufficient.

Finally, there appears to be some sort of instinctual attraction or bonding that takes place between the parents and the baby that ensures its protection no matter how long or how loud it cries or how much of a mess it makes.

All of these things seem to point me in the direction of seeing this fetus or baby as a human life form deserving all the rights to life as any other human, especially as much as a person that has murdered other humans.

So that brings me to my question:
Why does a guilty murderer have a greater right to life than an unborn baby?

I'm not even going to go into the Bible for scripture about how important every life is or into other metaphysical ideas about the interaction of every life form on the others.

The engineer in me looks at the numbers and sees issues with it. Based on the numbers of affected individuals, the unborn baby would be favored 200,000 to 1 more important than executed criminals (based on approximately 850,000 abortions per year compared to 42 executions performed in the U.S. in 2007). I don't even consider innocent people that are executed. How much more innocent can you get than a nearly newborn baby?

One argument I have heard for allowing abortion is for cases of rape or incest. In 2000, 1% of the abortions performed were due to this condition. That still leaves over 840,000 instances of one human destroying another human life.

Even if one said that the fetus is not viable anyway until about the 20th week after conception, in 2002, 1.4% of the abortions occurred after 20 weeks of gestation. That still makes about 12,000 instances of destroying potentially viable babies or 300 times more deaths than there were criminal executions in the U.S. last year.

Sadly, in our "Me" world, only about 8% of the abortions in 2000 were due to risk of fetal health or maternal health or other unnamed reason. That leaves well over 700,000 instances of a human life form being destroyed each year because it was basically inconvenient for some personal reason.

Before I sound cold and uncaring for convicted murderers or the women that undergo abortions, it is important to note that I don't understand the need for the loss of any human life, other than by natural causes. Even killing an attacker is an atrocity. However, the criminal at least had some amount of choice in how they lived their life. Unlike a fetus/baby who just happened to be along for the ride.

I have heard the argument that it was necessary for the mental stability of the woman. I know women who have had abortions who were relieved afterwards and never regretted having the abortion. However, I also know women who have had them, and who regret it and continue to have anxiety, depression or some other mental condition that they relate to the abortion(s).

The most popular reason I have heard is that it is just a matter of the woman's right to do whatever she thinks she needs to do with her body as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. I think it does hurt others around her, not to mention the baby that would have been. Futher, I think it hurts our society by minimizing the value of life and desensitizing people to the concern for the suffering of those that are less fortunate than themselves. If they are willing to get rid of their own baby then why should they care about someone they don't even know in some other far off area?

I really would like to hear other thoughts and ideas about the basic premise of abortion and how it relates to the right to life of death row inmates.

-Jim

[Curt]

I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen this argument from the right to life side. Usually, it's pro choicers who point out that the Christian right, who are so dead set against abortion, are also virulently pro capital punishment.

For myself, I see this issue differently. I feel, as I suspect most pro choicers do, that it's unreasonable to grant a mass of undifferentiated cells, or even a zygote which does not even yet have a brain or functioning nervous system, the status of human being with all the attendant rights and privileges.

Is it human life? Certainly. But the same can be said of any human tissue.

Can it feel pain or fear or disappointment that it won't develop and live? I don't see any reason to believe so.

Does it have the potential to become a mature human being? Certainly. But, these days, any human cell has the potential to become a human being through cloning. More to the point, any egg cell has the potential to join with a sperm and become a human being, so if potential is your bugaboo, then we should be doing everything in our power to make sure that no egg ever goes unfertilized. That may be a bit distasteful with the eggs of barely pubescent 13 year olds, but hey, potential is potential isn't it? If God didn't mean 13 year old girls to give birth, why do they produce viable eggs?

In the end, the pro life position is, in my opinion, entirely religious. It all depends on the notion that, at conception, a divine human life is created. Of course, the concept of innocence also enters into it for many people, who see no problem with ending the divine human lives of those who cross certain moral boundaries.

For me, the ethical considerations all revolve around suffering. Does the suffering of a woman who does not want a child, for whatever reason, trump the NON suffering of a lump of human tissue not even CAPABLE of pain or even thought of any kind? Yes, it does.

Having said that, I would also add that it is a real tragedy that the United States lags so far behind other modern, technological societies in the practice of birth control. It would be so easy to avoid abortions altogether if the many effective means of birth control were embraced and employed. But they're not, and I place the blame for this mostly on the influence of fundamentalist religious factions.

Even if you consider a fetus a human being from the moment of conception, and consider abortion murder, it still mystifies me how that reverence for the sanctity of human life can still sanction capital punishment. Probably, it's less a reverence for the sanctity of life, and more a reverence for the dubious interpretation of scripture.

[subboy]

you are not arguing similar subjects.

the death penalty is about whether a society uses its official power to put individuals to death for certain offenses (and murder is not the only capital offense in the US, not to mention other countries). the sanctity of life is only part of the argument against the death penalty: those who do not believe in such a thing can be against the death penalty on policy grounds.

abortion is not a policy; it's a medial procedure. the policy is whether or not a woman has the right to make the decisions regarding her reproductive abilities. arguing about "killing babies" is missing the mark entirely. the (human) nature of a fetus is not something on which government can make an honest determination; science can't, for that matter.

if you think it's immoral to terminate a pregnancy, that's your business. like every other matter of mortality, it's not your right (speaking my morality there, of course) to tell others what mortality they must accept. especially given that you cannot actually get pregnant.

reproductive rights and the death penalty are not equivalent. to argue that they are is to confuse the underlying issues.

[Curt]

Subboy, I agree with you. In fact, that was the whole point of my reply, that abortion and the death penalty are not even remotely equivalent.

However, that being said, Jim does not seem to see things the way we do, and for him, and those that feel as he does, that distinction simply does not exist.

For me, the idea that a mere zygote is a human being with all the rights attendant thereof is ridiculous. But as the fetus grows, who's to say when that changes? At what point is a fetus a person? For me, it's mostly a matter of neurology. For those who view the issue in light of theology, different standards may apply.

You did bring up an extremely important point, that being reproductive rights. There is a lot of confusion concerning Roe vs. Wade. I've heard many express the opinion that this famous Supreme Court case had something to do with when a fetus became a human being, due, I think, to the focus on viability by the court. In fact, this decision skirted that issue altogether. It's real focus was whether a woman was obligated to assume the risks and obligations of motherhood simply because she was impregnated.

It was not about reproductive rights, per se. It was about the rights of one human entity, the fetus, vs. the rights of another another human entity, the mother. Is one human being responsible for another simply because the other happens to be growing inside her womb? The issue of viability was a convenient, if somewhat nebulous, way of dealing with that issue. It NEVER questioned the humanity of a fetus at any point in it's development, but instead the concept of it's being able to survive on it's own outside the womb.

Personally, I think Roe vs. Wade missed the point entirely. I believe that at the point that a woman has a sentient being inside her, she has an obligation to protect it's life, no matter whether it's convenient or not. Issues of risk to the mothers life or health are another matter, of course, and if you don't think so, imagine that someone has bubonic plague, and that their life may be saved but at the risk of the caregivers infection and probable death. Who would you mandate to accept that awful risk? If you would not do it yourself, then how could you expect someone else to do it?

There are those who believe that the act of copulation imposes the responsibility of motherhood and fatherhood on those involved, should pregnancy occur. I, myself, agree with that position, on the condition, however, that the pregnancy should progress to the point that there is reason to believe that the fetus has some semblance of sentience. I also believe that that point is well along in the pregnancy, and that there is plenty of time to decide to abort before then, in nearly every case.

Abortion is, in all probability, an irreconcilable issue. There are those who believe that it is wrong, absolutely, and those who believe in the absolute right of the mothers reproductive choice, and many positions in between.

I do not believe that there is any requirement of civilized people to respect the beliefs of others. I do, however, belief that we must respect the RIGHTS of people to believe whatever they will, no matter how we may virulently oppose those beliefs, and to honor the willingness to stand up for what they believe in.

I guess this is the closest thing I have to an ideological position, since I can't really make any sense of it at all, and yet I feel that it's right anyway.

Curt