I have stated I am skeptical towards what is called abortion rights, but in the last post, I hit those in the anti-abortion camp for the dominance of conservatives (whose stances are inconsistent with being "pro-life) in the movement, the lack of understanding to the abortion rights argument, and the inability to provide solutions that would address concerns that could lead to an abortion.
I have also stated the reasons women decide to terminate pregnancies without consideration to the prenate the bore, so at least I have some understanding regarding their cause. Growing up in a devout society, in curricula laced with religion and in a country that constitutionally recognises the prenate as a human person, I found abortion as a thing to not welcome, that's why I got irked by a book in a local library titled "Abortion: A Positive Choice". As I get exposed to more studies, media and insights of people near me, I then see why certain women wanted abortions. Those, however, still fail to move my perception to prenates as our fellow, as human persons, with inalienable and inviolable rights.
Before I explain my insight, let me enumerate the arguments first against abortion: there is the human person characteristics argument, dictating what constitute a human person ("developed capacities"), drawing the line between life and non-life. Then there's also the "natural capacities" argument, answering the flaws of the former that also declare other body parts as living individuals; this concerns the inalienability and inviolability of rights one individual has. There is also the deprivation ("future like ours") argument, that prenates also end up as fully-developed humans. The bodily right argument is used by the pro-abortion camp, so critics provide counterarguments therefor. Lastly, the virtue ethics argument calls for respect for rights which prenates also have.
At first, here are my insights on prenates also being humans and living:
- The prenate and their bearer are not just physically separated by space (lumen) in the uterus; they are also genetically different (not different by just nerve cells, thus refuting the developed capacities argument), that skipping a certain process would kill the prenate. This process called decidualisation is done to accommodate the prenate as it is implanted in the endometrium that lines the uterus, which changes morphologically just for the prenate. Uterine natural killer (uNK) cells proliferate, suppressing the maternal immune system and preventing the woman's body to recognise the prenate as a different organism. The origin of these cells is still unknown, though.
- The prenate is, again, genetically different: half of the chromosomes come from the father and the other from the mother. The prenate is also different from the sperm and egg per se, as a sperm cell that meets another egg cell would produce an entirely different zygote.
- The prenate then developes into a fully-developed human individual, and we all crossed this path, so we were once prenates (deprivation argument). Freezing embryos would pause development, but it would only continue once thawed. It would be exclusive and hypocritical to disregard prenates as our fellow and that they are dispensable.
- Given that, prenates also have bodily rights, but they cannot speak for themselves as they are unable to. The flaw found in both bodily right and developed capacities arguments is regarding people under comatose, who, just because they lost one feature, may not be considered living using those arguments.
- Given the prenate is a human individual and is living, support for abortion rights cannot be reconciled with opposition to capital punishment and with the spirit of inclusivity.
Some people were planned to be aborted, and some of them end up in unfortunate destinies yet were able to live. These may be tantamount to frustrated murder attempts. Not all survivors would oppose termination attempts: I have read one account of one who was later working in a health field, thinking it was still fine for him to get aborted. This is, however, not always the case for surviving prenates who grow up, so it would then not be sufficient to call for an abortion if we consider the prenate.
I do not however end my piece on my insights only, as I have to consider the views of other people regarding the abortion debate, especially its philosophical aspect, as the debate revolves around the right to life. This issue involves metaphysics, so metaphysics cannot be disregarded here.
One time, Earl Coney wrote an article (1999) in the journal Mind, raising four discussions on metaphysics and abortion, arguing that the former has no bearing in moral opposition to abortion; Hershenov and Koch (2005) refuted him by using an approach of Hylomorphism, a philosophical theory arguing physical objects are combinations of matter and form. Later, However, when Francis Beckwith also used the metaphysical argument against abortion in his 2006 and 2007 pieces (the former in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy), in the same journal, Nobis (2011) dismissed the former's postulates based on the "Substance View", arguing those were mainly moral and he failed to adequately defend his argument.
One of the widely discussed arguments in thr academe regarding the abortion debate is the deprivation argument, the "future like ours" by American philosopher Don Marquis, that the destiny of the prenate will be the same us ours. The first critique of Dr. Carson Strong of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center to the argument led Marquis to make amendments thereto, but the latter's response (2012) to the revision showed lack of being convinced, finding it failing to address the original concerns.
This argument of Marquis is countered by what is called "Identity Objection", based on psychological theories on personal identity. Vogelstein (2014) objected to the objection, believing that prenates still have a future of value. Although Brill (2018) agreed with that portion, the counterargument is that such future is different from ours and thus is "unlike" ours. But Blackshaw (2019), despite still seeing the prenate's future is not quite like ours, the prenate can still have experiences the fully-developer human has, discounting the Objection.
I've mentioned virtue ethics earlier, being used as an argument against abortion. Aotearoan philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse is a major proponent of virtue ethics on abortion. Though widely cited, it does not come perfectly, so improvements were also suggested. But even abortion rights believers consider virtue ethics to not go aborting recklessly and all the way; Álvarez Mannien (2015) showed concern about aborting prenates with congenital conditions. This may pave way to promotion of eugenics and would provide an ableist aspect on abortion.
Even with these suggestions, agreements and improvements on insights on the abortion debate, the rift will not be easily quenched, because the anti-abortion and abortion rights camps have different philosophical approaches: the former tend to be deontological (morality is based on the action itself being correct), as against the latter who be deemed consequential (morality is based on the consequences of actions).
But I still stand by my stance that I cannot disregard the prenate being a living human individual like us. As a progressive, I consider the plight of women suffering just for the prenate they bear, and sometimes they have to let them go for the sake of humanity. And also as a progressive, I uphold inclusivity, meaning we cannot discriminate, we cannot exclude even one individual. Abortion rights can never be inclusive; this ditches humans in the earliest stages of life. That is why I find campaigning for it as ableist and ageist; in fact, this is the worst form of ageism.
So, I say, the woman can let go of the prenate, but for humanity's sake, let the prenate live! It's not always Sophie's Choice, that both can be saved. But how can we even make this possible? That I will be writing in the next post.
Article posted on 25 June 2022, 02:55 (UTC +08:00).
No comments:
Post a Comment