By Bernard James Mauser
This line is popular. “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but…” We all know what follows. This is also popular among politicians who are trying to appeal to this modified middle position. Let’s look at this a little more closely and then think of the implications.
Why is the pro-life advocate against abortion? Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Others who oppose abortion think this too.
Repeat back the position to the person personally opposed to abortion. They oppose abortion because it takes the life of an innocent human being. They also don’t think it is right to tell a mom she can’t kill her child. Making this clear often changes the minds of those who try to hold the middle ground.
One can also take a parallel type of reasoning from American history. Can you imagine someone saying, “I’m personally opposed to slavery, BUT… I shouldn’t tell other people not to own slaves?” Or, “I’m personally opposed to spousal abuse, BUT…I shouldn’t tell others not to abuse their spouse.” Although each of these is immoral, both are actually less evil than killing an unborn. We may recoil in horror from these examples, but don’t when speaking of the brutal ways of slaughtering the most innocent unborn.
This modified middle-position has another implication. Ask, “Should you tell a mom she shouldn’t kill her 6 or 7 year old child?” If so, why is the one right and the other wrong? The questions reveal the underlying assumption. The reason it is wrong to kill the older child is the same reason it is wrong to kill the unborn. Both are innocent, distinct, valuable human beings worthy of protection.
Further – if there is any doubt that there is a person at the very early stages – one should consider that the human nature exists, both physically and spiritually. Physically, the complete set of human DNA exists at the moment of conception. Spiritually – if one is willing to except anything beyond this physical universe – there exists a living spirit in the newly conceived one. If one does not believe the second, then the first is sufficient. Both together are the definition of a living person – not yet fully developed – but a person nonetheless. Personhood is not defined by the degree of development, as Feinberg points out in “Ethics for a Brave New World”.
It is unfortunate that modern philosophy discards the concept of nature, because it is really the answer to the question. That which has human nature is a human person.