Abortion Agnosticism
October 7, 2004
There’s popular pro-choice doctrine which I’ll call “abortion agnosticism.” It espouses a principle of neutrality — the notion that it’s fine to be against elective abortion, but that the two sides of the debate are morally equivalent. While ultimately you may choose one position over the other, the abortion agnostic says, it’s no more than that: a choice. It’s okay to feel as you do about the fetus (whatever feeling you have), but in the end nobody’s right and nobody’s wrong. A common expression of this view is found on countless buttons and bumper stickers: “Against Abortion? Don’t Have One!”
According to this theory, being pro-choice doesn’t mean taking a side. It’s simply a matter of respecting differing beliefs. One of the primary purposes of the doctrine is to dispel the notion that pro-choice is somehow pro-abortion. Indeed, abortion agnostics frequently argue that even being anti-abortion is consistent with being pro-choice.
On its face, abortion agnosticism seems fair and reasonable. To each her own. But is it really tenable? Is true neutrality possible?
Let’s first consider, in rough form, the two attitudes towards which the doctrine professes neutrality. On the one hand, some people view the unborn as the equivalent of a parasite, a clump of cells, or wart. At best, it’s something to be identified in clinical terms: a blastocyte, a zygote, an embryo, or the “product of conception.” But it’s not human in any meaningful moral sense, much less in any legal sense. There’s no more reason to object to abortion than there is to get upset over the hair or nails on the floor of a beauty salon. And while abortion should be safe and certainly legal, there’s no compelling reason to make it rare — any more than there’s a moral reason to make haircuts or manicures rare. For lack of a better word, I’ll call this the “cold” position.
The second view is that the fetus has achieved some recognizable, meaningful human status. Abortion thus involves an actual moral decision, one which makes the act to some degree “sad” or “wrong,” or even “terrible” or a “tragedy.” As a form of killing, it’s a very serious decision, an option of last resort. People in this category, even if they’re pro-choice, commonly call themselves “anti-abortion” or “personally opposed.” I’ll call this the “warm” position.
At first glance I think it’s evident that no sincere adherent of either position could actually “respect” the position of the other on any serious intellectual level. In practice, they certainly do not. Those subscribing to the “cold” view invariably see the position embraced by the “warm” side as irrational, superstitious or religious. Their “respect” for a woman who declines to abort an unwanted pregnancy out of so-called “pro-life” considerations is more of a tolerant disdain. They view her much as an apathetic atheist views believers who pray or fast or otherwise engage in time-consuming rituals or acts of self-deprivation — it’s their right, yes but they simply wouldn’t bother with it all if they knew better, if they hadn’t been brainwashed into such thinking earlier in life.
Thus, while those of the cold view may believe in a general sense that a woman has the right to make up her own mind on the matter (as she does about Jesus or Ganesh or Zeus), they wouldn’t be neutral in their efforts to persuade a child or a friend that the warm view is trivial. It’s important to them that others understand that those who protest outside of abortion clinics are as silly as those who might stand outside a salon trying to dissuade women from getting a haircut. And if asked for an opinion by a woman contemplating an abortion but wavering on its morality, they would tell her that her fears were unfounded, no more valid that questioning the morality of eating a piece of chocolate.
The warm side has a corresponding disrespect for the cold view. Obviously those who are anti-choice reject it, but as is significant here, the expression of disdain is especially strong among those who consider themselves anti-abortion yet pro-choice. Indeed, even the mainstream pro-choice organizations occasionally denounce the “cold” view, insisting that every woman takes the choice seriously and understands the underlying grave moral issue its consequences. Many pro-choice women declare that they themselves would never have an abortion. The insistence that abortion be made “rare,” it is said, is motivated by something more than a mere concern over the inconvenience of a wasted afternoon in clinic.
So judgmentalism is a feature of both the warm and cold views. As to the moral issue regarding the status of the fetus, there’s really no agnosticism within each position. (I recognize that some of the “cold” turn “warm” with respect to the later stages of the pregnancy, but this doesn’t mean that they’re agnostic at any fixed point). Neither side professes to believe that the opposing attitude towards the fetus is as valid as its own. Neither side is really agnostic.
So who are the abortion agnostics? Ultimately, I think, they’re members of the cold camp posing as members of the warm. People like John Kerry, who declare a deeply-held moral belief that “life begins at conception,” but support choice on separation of church and state grounds, i.e. on the ground that a sincere anti-abortion view is in reality just a lot of religious claptrap. Or Al Sharpton, who believes that abortion is so immoral that it leads to Hell, but supports choice because, again, he sees his own opposition as founded solely upon a religion in which he doesn’t really believe.
I don’t mean to suggest that the agnostic position is always insincere, at least on the conscious level. But it strikes me in many ways as incoherent and contrived. Consider, for example, a scene in the very first episode of The West Wing. President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) is introduced as a religious man who spent eight months on a private crusade trying to discourage teenage girls from having abortions. But he’s pro-choice, and when Christian anti-abortion leaders come to lobby him he demands that they “get [their] fat asses out of my White House!”
Bartlet is indeed fictional; I cannot think of any pro-choice organization that actively discourages expectant women from having abortions. NARAL and Planned Parenthood do not present both sides of the debate, including anti-abortion moral arguments, on their websites. Most people who identify themselves as pro-choice but anti-abortion would not consider engaging in sidewalk counseling outside of a clinic to attempt to persuade women of their moral views, even if assured that a certain percentage do change their minds. Again, I think the underlying assumption is that a woman who decides against the procedure as a result of such persuasion has been brainwashed or intimidated into accepting irrational beliefs — whereas one who goes ahead with abortion after being “reassured” with contrary arguments is acting of her own free will.
October 7th, 2004 @ 6:21 pm
I don’t think it’s legitimate to cite what a politician says to represent a philosophical position. It is only safe to assume that political expressions of personal philosophy are calculated to project a carefullly crafted image, and hope that to the extent we have made decisions based on a projected image that diverges from a personal conviction, the politician will remain consistent with the image we have accepted. I have no reason to believe that anything Kerry, Bush, or Rangel says about a contentious issue like abortion is based on anything more than their own estimate, or the estimate of a political consultant, about the compatiblity of that particular position with what is perceived as the population of voters likely to be influenced by that position. I guess another way of saying this is: from the standpoint of moral argument, who gives a shit about what any politician has to say about morality?
I use the term zygote and fetus to distinguish between different stages of gestation because it’s easier and more accurate to say zygote than fertlized egg, and because a just-fertilized egg is not a human being in a moral or legal sense. If it was possible to reach into the womb and destroy a zygote with a pinch of the fingers (assuming consent of the female) I could do so just as easily as I could trim my toenails. I couldn’t do this to a four month old fetus –a baby if you will.
There is no doubt that if abortion is legal for reasons other than saving the life of the mother, women will get abortions for what some will consider flimsy reasons –just like the fact that alcohol is legal means that some people will abuse alcohol and other people will suffer for it. Some women will use abortion for birth control. The presumption of innocence in our system of justice (to the extent it still exists) means that some guilty people will go free, and other people will suffer for it. There is no algebra that can satisfactorily determine what is lost or gained in these situations, and we may never know how many Hitlers were aborted for every Einstein, or even determine a value if such a ratio could be determined.
October 7th, 2004 @ 7:07 pm
I think abortion agnosticism is rational, unlike religious agnosticism, since it _can_ basically boil down to how much value you place on human life. I agree with RA’s rationale behind his pro-life stance, I just don’t value human life as much. So I’m pro-choice. Since the value one places in human life isn’t based on science or logic, there is no correct stance. People who value life more will rationally be pro-life, those who value it less will be pro-choice.
October 7th, 2004 @ 8:11 pm
It’s a lot easier to be judgmental about something you’re never going to have to deal with.
October 8th, 2004 @ 12:21 am
….And being conveniently irrational is the easiest position of all, when you can get away with it.
October 8th, 2004 @ 2:32 am
What about taking a more Libertarian position that abortion should be legal, but discouraged? The government shouldn’t tell me what I can or can’t do with my body, but that doesn’t mean that everything I can do with it is a wise choice. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, yet we discourage people from using them, or using them to excess, can not the same be true of abortion?
I think that’s what’s at the core of the belief that abortion should legal, safe, and rare, but personally, I’m more of the “cold” variety.
October 8th, 2004 @ 2:57 am
This post is a good illustration of the major problem with many of your arguments: Your compulsion to restate others’ positions as their most extreme versions.
In your religious arguments, you constantly insist that anyone who believes in God must believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (which you alternately refer to as “most definitions of God” or “all definitions of God”). Well, of course. It’s easy to disprove the omnipotent/ omniscient/ omnibenevolent definition through the use of logic. If we define God that narrowly, I’m an Atheist. If, however, we dismiss omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence as hyperbole and allow for the less rigid definitions of God that most believers use (at least in my experience) then I’m Agnostic: I seriously doubt that anything resembling the Abrahamic God actually exists, but I have to admit that I do not know for certain.*
In your abortion arguments, you insist that people must either define a fetus as a human being with all of the same inherent rights as a walking, talking twenty year old or define it as a clump of cells and feel no more sympathy toward it than they would toward a fingernail clipping. Well, no. As with so much else, the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. A fetus certainly is alive, and as it develops its human features, it could be said to be turning more and more human. But, as I’ve stated before, the fact that a fetus is simultaneously a living creature and a part of another person’s body is exactly what makes the abortion debate so difficult. There’s nothing inconsistent about having sympathy for a fetus and sympathy for a woman’s right to have control over her own reproductive system.
*By the way, if we dismiss omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence as hyperbole, we are left with an imperfect God whose rules and actions would therefore be fallable, meaning that modern law and politics would still be trivialized by devotion to Him, even if He existed.
October 8th, 2004 @ 3:01 am
And by the way…
REPOST
You keep saying that you are anti-abortion and anti-choice. Well, you’ve defended your anti-abortion stance (your opposition to abortion in theory), but you haven’t really defended your anti-choice stance (your belief that abortion should be illegal except — as you have stated before — when the mother’s life is in jeopardy). Is making abortion illegal a practical way to reduce the number of abortions performed? If not, what is the reason for making it (or anything, for that matter) illegal? If so, would the law by itself be enough, or is there anything additional you would propose in order to reduce the number of abortions? And what would you propose in terms of enforcement of the law? The penalties for those who perform abortions? The investigation of miscarriages as potential homicides? The decision regarding exceptions made to save the mother’s life?
After you’ve considered my softball questions, I also invite you to address the questions of markm, which you will find in the comments of your last UA post.
October 8th, 2004 @ 9:40 am
MR. SWILL: I will devote a post to answering all of your questions to date (and those of markm) within a month. Some of them will be addressed in intervening posts, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by your comments on a line-by-line basis. You may, of course, raise additional questions in abortion posts I make before that time.
October 8th, 2004 @ 10:16 am
Mister Swill, I don’t think “most” believers use the terms omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, or have considered their implications. However, I have never met anyone calling himself Christian, or Muslim for that matter, that believes God makes mistakes, can’t do something, or doesn’t know something. I haven’t conducted any surveys to determine if they believe God possesses two or more of these traits in combination, but in my experience believers hold to at least one of them. I’m sure there are people that believe in a God that makes mistakes through ignorance and impotence but I’ve never met such a person. And I live in the Bible Belt, so I’ve met a lot of Thumpers.
Whatever lesser abilities you want to ascribe to God, I don’t see how you can escape the logic that such a being must be evil or malevolent. Now there is no reason a God has to be “good,” but I doubt whether there are many “believers,” in any but the most extreme concepts of God, that think God is evil or malevolent. Given the observable product of God, if He does indeed exist, I don’t see how you can define a logically consistent God that is “good.” Since most believers think God is good, or otherwise would have no reason to believe, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be atheistic with regard to any concept of the Christian God. Of course, this doesn’t negate the logic of agnosticism, but I think it relegates it to a concept of God that is not embraced by most believers.
October 8th, 2004 @ 11:04 am
I wonder how many people really argue this point from personal experience? I mean, all I ever hear from any side of this “argument” is a steady stream of philosophical rantings which are rarely connected to a real situation. Sure, the “anti” side says “fetus” and “baby” while “pro” side says “zygote” and all, trying to spin the argument through emotionally charged terms. But, the reality of the situation that people actually go through when faced with an unwanted pregnancy is so far removed from these arguments, that - like the recent debates - the arguments really don’t mean a whole lot.
I don’t believe abortions should be illegal. If you are going to argue that an abortion snuffs out potential, you are largely right. If you are going to argue that an abortion snuffs out a life, you are probably right, at least to a varying degree over the length of a pregnancy. But, does everybody really have to value that potential or that life to such a high degree that it is more important than every other consideration. I don’t think so.
I do not consider myself a cold-hearted bastard, but I really don’t think that all life is worth the same. I absolutely have a normal “human” emotional response to a relative dying, running over a squirrel with my car, and abortions - all situations I have been through, and many more than once. Sure, they make me feel “sad”. But… is everything that makes me feel bad intrinsically or “morally” wrong? Here’s a true story: I was in an argument with a theist 2 weeks ago, and spotted a bee flying around. It was just one of many, and it really didn’t threaten me. But I killed it when it landed on the ground by my foot. The theist was shocked at my indifference, but I really didn’t care much. Was I “wrong”?
I doubt anyone can argue from an atheist standpoint that there is some sort of intrinsic value to the universal protection of “life.” To paraphrase a famous quote, I contend we are both abortionists. I just value one product of embryology less than you.
October 8th, 2004 @ 12:11 pm
For most people, the topic of abortion is indeed philosophical. And philosophy, as we know, cannot always explain reality, no matter how hard it tries. However, if we accept that fifty percent of the population cannot become pregnant, and of the other fifty percent, roughly seventy-five percent will never consider having an abortion, we begin to realize why society at large is incapable of debating the real issue; seven percent of the population will actually be in a situation where they might consider an abortion. Of them, fifty percent may go ahead, and fifty percent will regret whatever decision they make.
So the entire population is trying to regulate a decision that only seven out of a hundred will face. This is what’s called the tyranny of the majority, something which RA, being an atheist, might like to comment on. Christians are, after all, the ‘moral’ majority in this country.
I further contend, since morality is subjective, that no ‘moral majority’ has the right to decide anything, for anyone else. Which includes the anti-choice crowd, but not the pro-choice crowd precisely because of what RA insults as ‘abortion agnosticism’. The real moral position is allowing other people to do what is best for their future happiness.
October 8th, 2004 @ 12:15 pm
I don’t have any real strong opinion on this post, but seeing that R/UA is following what we have to say and is planning on answering some of the questions brought forth in the comment section, I thought I would back up Mickey’s post about not really place such a high value on human life as RA, and expand on it a little.
When most of us become atheists, we realize that most of the rest of our lives don’t change, for the very good reason that the “God” we were told about was never more than some abstract fallacy, and not something that helped us get jobs or talked us through tough times in life or chipped in when we needed money for car repair. So, atheists find it is easy enough to keep their values system intact with no God. Religionists like to insist that there can be no morals without God, but that’s ridiculous of course. But one thing I do think we have to be careful about is importing religious morality directly into our own, just cutting out all the references to God. Because religious morality is not the same as secular morality. And one of the big things I think we cannot import from religious morality into secular morality is the belief that human life is always sacred. Human life is not sacred. We are a collection of proteins and minerals and water that has a large brain. When we die, nature does not care. Human life is sacred inasmuch as we form attachments to people and care for them and inasmuch as we realize society functions best when we place a large value on human life. But this does not mean that human life is always sacred, or that anything we define as “life” must be sacred. This is religious morality, not secular morality. So, I think for an atheist, any arguments that rests on the assumption of the sanctity of life is just not a good argument.
October 8th, 2004 @ 12:56 pm
I don’t believe I have ever heard anybody describe an Embryo, Zygote, whatever as a Parasite or a Wart or thier equivalent, maybe I’ve just lead a sheltered life…..
I like RA was a candidate for abortion however I do not consider myself lucky, or fortunate, nor do I waste my time concerning myself with the notion any more that I consider that it was lucky that the particular sperm fertalized the egg as opposed to the myriad Sperm that didn’t “make it”.
As mentioned above this is all related to the value one places on a single life. Personally I don’t think that it is a big deal to abort an unborn fetous, execute a criminal or assist the suicide the terminally ill.
Redfred
October 8th, 2004 @ 4:32 pm
RA,
As someone who is very much in favor of abortion being a legal option (accepting a time limit the same or similar to the one currently imposed) I don’t recognize the ‘cold’ view described above, however much RA might want to believe people like myself hold such views. Most of your post appears to have been written by your religious crack-pot friend Annie Banno. You don’t understand our position and you look like a fool when you try to describe it. Claiming that people like me equate a fetus with nail clippings really portrays you as a jackass in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.
Unless you have been pregnant it is incomprehensible to understand the sense of loss when a (wanted) fetus spontaneously aborts … then a second …. and a third. In spite of this, in certain circumstances I would still have had an abortion. It is a terrible choice to have to make. But it is my choice. I will make it and I think it is pragmatic of society to allow me to make it in a safe and hygenic fashion.
I look forward to RA’s response to questions posed some time ago regarding:
(1) legality of abortion in the case of rape
(2) threat to the life of the mother (and how this is reasonably determined wihout endless appeals)
(3) are IUDs, morning after pills and other contraceptives deemed by RA to be homicide and what is the appropriate punishment of users and those that supply them?
(4) doctors and nurses who perform abortions are deemed by RA to be murderers - what penalty should they face?
(5) What punishment would be appropriate for US residents who travel to countries where the service can be legally performed?
October 8th, 2004 @ 9:21 pm
Debbie:
Good questions. You highlighted very well the fundamental difficulty with this issue–the boundary problems.
I would like to add one more:
How deformed must a fetus be before the better moral choice is abortion?
It is possible to be anti-abortion in most cases, while simultaneously believing the government has no business making the decision.
After all, unless the governments position is absolute prohibition under all circumtances, it too is pro-choice.
Its choice. Not yours.
October 8th, 2004 @ 10:00 pm
Viole said: “The real moral position is allowing other people to do what is best for their future happiness.”
Sorry, but what if someone decides that me being dead is necessary for their future happiness? Your position amounts to moral nihilism. We can’t just allow everyone to do whatever they please. I would suggest we allow people to do what is best for their future happiness, provided that they don’t impinge on the legitimate rights of third parties. I disagree with RA that a fetus (which is a parasite on a woman) has any valid rights, so I’m pro-choice.
October 9th, 2004 @ 10:10 am
Oops, I’m sorry. I foolishly thought that people wouldn’t be stupid enough to think I advocate complete anarchy, and would automatically assume that I’m against murder/rape/theft/etc.
October 9th, 2004 @ 1:17 pm
Mark: if we decide your death is needed for our happiness, we will kill you, we may even drop a nuclear bomb on you (been there, done that, doing it now in Iraq). Perhaps it’s best to conduct yourself so that society will want to keep you alive.
Viole: the way to rebut ‘what if’ arguments is to run with them: what if Mark were another Hitler? We would be fools not to kill him, given the chance.
October 10th, 2004 @ 10:23 pm
Debbie, Jeff: I’ll add your questions to the list I’m going to address when I get to the Swill/MarkM set.
October 11th, 2004 @ 10:37 am
June, I don’t think we have to hypothesize a fetus as another Hitler to consider aborting it a social good. How many unaborted “babies” grow up to be rapists, murderers, or sociopaths? How do we know a particular unaborted “baby” isn’t going to grow up and kill someone else’s teenage daughter, or molest a little boy? Every unaborted fetus is a potential killer, perhaps subject only to the environment in which it is subsequently raised. For all we know, there are 1.347 unaborted Jeffery Dahlmers for every unaborted RA. But I don’t know, maybe the world would be better off with more atheists even if it meant 1.347 times more serial killers.
October 11th, 2004 @ 12:18 pm
My point was that the use of hypotheticals is dangerous since they give the opponent the right to extend it ABSURDLY. To make that point, I had to choose an extreme hypothetical extension, such as a fetus being a potential Hitler.
For my next lecture, I will now discuss the fallacy of renaming a concept and then attacking the concept under a new name. Examples abound, such as calling a zygote a fetus, or a fetus a baby. or calling a fetus a parasite and then arguing about parasites. All sheer nonsense, even ignoring the elementary fact that a parasite is of a different species than its host. As Lincoln supposedly said, if you call a tail a leg, a dog still has only four legs, because calling a tail a leg does not MAKE it a leg.
Based on past experience, I now expect rebuttals that Lincoln had two legs and was not a parasite or a fetus!
October 11th, 2004 @ 4:05 pm
June, I was agreeing with you and adding some hypotheticals of my own. I also deliberately conflated “baby” and “fetus” since at whatever point before he took power Hitler might have been “aborted” the world would still have been spared a “Hitler.” Often this argument about “potential” is cast in terms of the societal contributions a particuar fetus would have made as a fully developed human being if it hadn’t been aborted. We can speculate about any outcome, but even if we had reason to believe that every aborted fetus would turn out to be another Einstein it doesn’t necessarily follow that this would be good for our society, humankind in general, or the fetus in particular.
October 11th, 2004 @ 8:50 pm
I see life as a lottery: One ticket out of 15 million pays off, and when it does, we protect it. The fact that a ticket has payoff potential gives it no rights except to participate in the drawing. For abortion, that point is currently after the first trimester. TRA makes fun of that line as arbitrary, but it is not, since it has been carefully chosen after serious study as balancing several competing rights and interests. Roe v. Wade is a solomonic solution, and nobody offers a better alternative; TRA’s view ignores the rights of the mother over her body.
October 20th, 2004 @ 12:09 pm
Viole, it’s me again. Just a minor nit, won’t bother with the rest since we’re agreeing to disagree on all that: “However, if we accept that fifty percent of the population cannot become pregnant, and of the other fifty percent, roughly seventy-five percent will never consider having an abortion…”
Are you talking about the U.S. population?
If so, I’m not sure where you got your stats but Planned Parenthood’s own “Allan Guttmacher Institute” has said 43% of American women will have had at least one abortion by the age of 45. And on the WB11 News on 4/5/03, Kaity Tong announced that “40% of American women will have had at least one abortion by the age of 20.” Two out of every 5.
So, 40% of ALL women aged 20 or older already have had at least one abortion. So “75% never considering having an abortion” is incorrect to “accept.”
January 21st, 2005 @ 8:17 am
Of course not. You already addressed that point by saying “ultimately you may choose one position over the other”. You definitions of so-called abortion agnostics are simplistic - whilst they more or less present two fairly distinctive viewpoints, it hardly suggests the myriad of variations in-between which undoubtedly exist. I, according to you, would fall into this abortion-agnostic camp - I am personally against it, yet understand that there are people out there who don’t share that view. I can’t say I’ve come to a definitive position on the issue - that’s why I’d consider myself agnostic on it. I’m certainly not one of the “cold” people masquerading as a “warm” one - which is what you seem to suggest.
It is amusing though that someone making accusations of judgementalism is in doing so making a judgement.
Ultimately, we should be concentrating on prevention. There are reasons people have abortions, and it is those reasons that need addressing. Criminalising abortion will simply drive the practise underground, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
January 23rd, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
The anti-choice position–the idea that it should be *illegal* to disagree with the anti-abortion position–forces all women to abide by a belief whether or not they share it. Are the women who don