THREE AGRUMENTS AGAINST ABORTION
In his essay titled “ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF LIBERTY” (http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/conservation.htm), in the section on the Right to Life, Skousen discusses abortion.
He gives three arguments against abortion.
#1. THE UNBORN CHILD IS INNOCENT
Skousen says, “This most basic of all rights, the RIGHT TO LIFE, is defined as broadly as possible in order to preserve innocent life from external attack.”.
Briefly: The unborn child is innocent. Therefore he cannot be killed.
I agree that the unborn child is “innocent”. He is not guilty of some harmful act which justifies punishing him or executing him.
The great importance of the “innocence” of the unborn child is related to the theological idea that the moment of conception is the moment of creation of a new eternal life. As a Christian, a person who believes this may also believe that this new eternal life is going to go either to Heaven or to Hell. If the unborn child is aborted, the question arises, will he go to Heaven or to Hell? Since the child is “innocent”, presumably the judgment must be favorable, and the child must go to Heaven. However, one could reasonably feel that such a judgment is based on insufficient data. And therefore, one could protest cutting short the career of this new eternal life before the child is even born. One might also feel unhappy at being forced to consider this question in the first place, as to whether the unborn child goes to Heaven or to Hell. Outlawing abortion would help to minimize this theological stress.
If one does not believe that the moment of conception is the moment of creation of a new eternal life, then none of this applies.
#2. THE UNBORN CHILD IS A LIFE BEING FORMED
Skousen says, “I believe that life should be protected FROM CONCEPTION since there is, at the very least, a unique life IN THE FORMATION PROCESS.”.
Briefly: The unborn child is a life being formed. Therefore he cannot be killed.
I agree that the unborn child is a life being formed. However, I point out that it is the body which is being formed. The spiritual being who takes over the new baby body is not in the process of being formed. The spiritual being lives forever, both before and after his association with this body. Without the spiritual being, the new baby body is no more than an animal.
#3. THE PARENTS ARE OBLIGATED BECAUSE THEY CREATED A CHILD
Skousen says, “We are faced with an apparent conflict of rights here, between the mother and the child. But upon close analysis, there is no such conflict, for each party to the conflict is exercising rights during different time frames. First, both mother and father, under voluntary circumstances, have already exercised their right when they chose to engage in marital relations – which was previous to the new child's existence. Like all other rights involving positive acts, freedom may, and usually does, become linked to consequences which the acting parties are bound to accept as part of the responsibility for those actions as they affect others. This is always true where an innocent third party is directly affected by such an act. In this case, because a child has been engendered, the parents are both obligated (not just the mother) to the engendered child in nurturing him or her to the point of self-sufficiency.”.
Skousen is saying, the mother and father voluntarily exercised their right to have sex, before the child existed. That’s true.
Skousen is saying, people must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions which affect others. That’s true.
Skousen is saying, the unborn child is a third party affected by the sexual act of the parents. It is true that the unborn child was brought into existence by the sexual act of the parents, although not intentionally.
Skousen is saying, because the parents created the unborn child, they are obligated to raise the child, a project involving roughly 20 years of labor by the mother and another 20 years of labor by the father. Skousen has not established this. He just asserts it.
That’s the question. If the parents unintentionally create an unwanted child, are they then obligated to spend the next 20 years raising it? To simply assert a proposition is not an argument in favor it. To say, They are obligated because they are obligated.” is not an argument.
Skousen says, “Since the child is the innocent affected party, being engendered by the acts of others, his right to preservation must be held superior to any desires of the parent or parents to terminate the pregnancy, especially for reasons of mere personal convenience. There is no right to terminate the pregnancy any more than there is a right to terminate any other voluntary contract or involuntary consequence of a responsible act which affects an innocent third party. Therefore, there is no "right" to an abortion of convenience, . . .”.
Skousen is saying, because the parents created the unborn child, they have no right to kill the unborn child. Again, Skousen has not established this. He just asserts it. Again, simply asserting a proposition is not an argument in favor of it.
Skousen says, “There is no right to terminate the pregnancy any more than there is a right to terminate any other voluntary contract”. Here Skousen is saying that the pregnancy is a voluntary contract with the unborn child. This is nonsense. As Skousen points out, the unborn child did not exist at the time of the voluntary sexual act. There cannot be a voluntary contract made with a party who does not exist.
Skousen says, “There is no right to terminate the pregnancy any more than there is a right to terminate any other involuntary consequence of a responsible act which affects an innocent third party.”. Here Skousen is simply saying, again, that people must accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions which affect others. Asserting this very valid general principle, even asserting it repeatedly, in no way establishes that the consequences of the sexual act of the parents include 40 years of involuntary servitude to the unborn child.
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN BABY?
The general rule is that when a person creates something, that thing belongs to him. It is his property. He can do whatever he wants with it. He can destroy it if he wants to.
In the case of an unborn child, it is objected that this is not a thing. This is a new living person. Therefore it is not property in the usual way. It has the Right to Life. Therefore, it cannot be killed, just because the parents do not want to change their life plans so they can spend the next 20 years raising this unwanted child.
But here again we need to consider the distinction between the new baby body and the spiritual being which may have already or soon will take over the new body. The body is new. The spiritual being is not new at all. It is simply taking advantage of this opportunity to acquire a new body.
One can picture an automobile sales lot, where new cars are waiting to be sold. Someone gets into one of the new cars and drives it around. Then he says, “I like this new car! I’ll keep it!”. But he does not pay for it. The salesman will say, “But it’s not your car yet!”. Did title pass, just because a driver got into it? It is now a car with a driver. The car must belong to the driver!
Skousen defines “Family Rights”. The parents have complete rights over the child, short of imminent threat to the life of the child. This solidly establishes that the child belongs to the parents, not to the government. The child has very limited rights, until the child is able to assume responsibility for himself.
The child not yet grown up has limited rights because he is not able to take care of himself. The parents have major rights over the child.
Similarly, one could say that when the child is not yet born, he has even less rights, and the parents have even great rights. One could say that the parents are not obligated to the child unless they choose to have the child. This is very similar to allowing the parent to have rights over the child which is not yet grown up. It is carrying the same idea another step. The parents have the right to refuse to have the child which is not yet born.
In effect, this is saying to the spiritual being who wants to take over the new baby body, “You do not have title to the body until it is born. This unborn body was created accidentally, and you cannot have it unless we choose to give it to you.”.
Forcing the parents to have the child could be viewed as a violation of their Right to Property over the unborn baby body which they created.
DO THE PARENTS OWE THE BODY OR THE SPIRITUAL BEING?
It is alleged that the parents of the unwanted child owe the child 40 years of service, 20 years for the mother and 20 years for the father. One might ask, is this great debt is owed to the physical body of the unborn child or to the spiritual being? The physical body is just a piece of meat, no more than an animal. The physical body has no rights. If the great debt is owed to the spiritual being, why is that? Did the parents promise it? No, they did not. Has the spiritual being done some great service for the parents? No, it has not.
Is there some great crime of which the parents are guilty, and because of which they must do this great 40 years of penance? No, there is not. They enjoyed love and sexual delight with each other. Maybe there are some religious theories according to which this is a great sin which deserves heavy punishment. I myself admire it and I wish the happy couple joy. I also wish them many children when they choose to have them.
THE UNBORN CHILD IS FORCING THE PARENTS TO SERVE HIM
Skousen says, “Fundamental rights are those rights that all persons can claim simultaneously without forcing others to serve them.”
If abortion is outlawed, then the unwanted unborn child is forcing the parents to serve him.
DOES THE RIGHT TO HAVE SEX CARRY A CONTINGENT LIABILITY?
It is agreed that a man and a woman have a right to have sex.
The question is whether exercising this right to have sex involves a very large contingent liability. If contraception fails, are both parents obligated to spend the next 20 years of their lives raising the child?
Is this contingent liability an inherent part of the right to have sex?
Or does there exist a right to have sex without this contingent liability?
* * * * * * *
Comments