by Ron Paul
This whole debate over precisely estimating gestational age confuses the issue, since all life from the day of conception is viable if left in place.
How viable is a newborn? A newborn is more demanding and requires more active care than does a fetus.
Parents have no right or authority to abandon or neglect a newborn, and ought not to have the authority to abandon their pre-born offspring. The viability argument is a smoke screen to avoid discussing the real issue.
Since there’s no clear biological difference between a 22-week fetus and a 23-week fetus, there should be no legal difference. Since newborns have a right to receive care from their parents, pre-borns have a right not to be killed before birth. If parents have no legal or moral responsibility to their children, civilization is in deep trouble.
If fuzzy, ever-changing lines are allowed to be drawn by politicians and judges between viable and nonviable life to justify abortion-on-demand to suit the convenience of parents, allowing them to renege on their responsibilities, all life and liberty are threatened.
This debate should not be allowed to become foolish. It’s hardly an argument over which tests the abortionist must order before being allowed to perform an abortion. Life must have more meaning than the chemical measurement of the syringomyelin/lecithin ratio. The absurdity of trying to work out a system of law that grants rights to the fetus at the precise time a chemical measurement hits a certain level is indeed silly.
The only advantage to this argument is that the pro-abortionists, at least, concede that pre-born life is important and deserves protection of the law—at a certain stage. This particular debate does not involve those libertarians who contend that the fetus is a parasite and has no right, even up to the date of birth, to stay where it’s not wanted.
Pro-abortionists will continue to struggle to find a convenient point in fetal life, where rights are conferred, but the obvious dilemma for them is the natural and logical answer, that right to life begins at conception.
“Right-to-Lifers are reactionary conservatives and extreme fundamentalists.”
It’s true, a large majority of conservatives and almost all religious fundamentalists are strongly opposed to abortion, but many others oppose abortion as well.
Many have heard of Feminists Against Pornography, but there is also a less-well-known group called Feminists for Life of America (FLA). This group literally drives the NOW feminists up the wall! NOW delights in the abortion issue and resulting clashes at the abortion clinics. It gives them visibility and a cause. The political agenda of NOW is much broader in scope than women’s issues—it’s the entire liberal agenda. The abortion issue is used mainly for public relations purposes and recruiting.
A similar charge can be made against some right-wing, pro-life groups that are as interested in a militant foreign policy as they are in stopping abortion. If abortions were quietly done with pills and no publicity, NOW would be totally frustrated. They want demonstrations, conflicts, and confrontation.
FLA’s Melissa Simmons Tulin claims the pro-abortion position is fatal discrimination and a tragic error.
Tulin argues that the obsession to be like men has driven them to demanding the right to destroy their own children. She also points out that legalization of abortion has increased the number of women who die from abortions, although now these women die from legally sanctioned abortions.
Ms. Tulin’s point is that women’s rights are enhanced by a pro-life position—not diminished. Considering the fact that almost all abortions are performed by male abortionists, and female fetuses are frequently selected for abortion, the FLA makes a point.
The Wall Street Journal reports a self-described “super-liberal person, a real feminist’s,” remorse over being pressured by her husband into an abortion. Stephanie O’Callahan now views abortion as “murder.” [6] Her abortion, she states, destroyed her marriage and left her with deep regrets. Although part of the feminist movement, the Journal reports, she is angry that “…the women’s movement has completely neglected and rejected women in pain from this,” i.e., the psychological trauma of having an abortion. Denial of pain is the position NOW takes, rather than offering compassion to women in need, and is the position it must take or concede that abortion is not the benign event they pretend it to be.
There are others who are right-to-life who certainly are not conservatives or fundamentalist and understandably aren’t even comfortable being placed in the same category.
Nevertheless, taking the position that the fetus deserves legal protection brings together many who otherwise would be strange bedfellows.
Bernard Nathanson, author of Aborting America, is best known for changing his position on abortion after performing 1,500 abortions and supervising 60,000. Nathanson, once an avowed atheist, is critical of much of the approach of fundamentalist Christians—although his legal position regarding the fetus is similar.
Nathanson argues that “…the sanctity of life is not a theological but a secular concept and should be perfectly acceptable to atheists.” Nathanson changed his view for scientific reasons—the ultrasound and other scientific tools revealed real life in the earliest stages of gestation that could not be ignored. He also came to the conclusion: “Every good argument for abortion is a good argument for infanticide.”
Nat Hentoff, journalist and staff writer for The Village Voice, maintains a pro-life position and rejects belief in God. While reporting on Baby Doe, the infant with Downe’s Syndrome who died after nutrition was withheld at his parent’s request, Hentoff came to the conclusion that all life is indivisible.
It dawned on him that murderers on death row had more rights than defective babies.
Hentoff was shocked that the ACLU did not defend the rights of the infant, because the ACLU claimed that a woman’s right to control her own body should include dispensing with a handicapped baby. (And some still argue that abortion is not related to infanticide!) During the time Hentoff studied and reported on Baby Doe, it dawned on him that murderers on death row had more rights than defective babies.
Hentoff says that, to be consistent, abortion opponents, should also be anti-war and opposed to the endless and senseless arms race. Sounds to me like he has a libertarian streak in his thinking!
Journalist Christopher Hitchins, an atheist, Marxist, and materialist, is pro-life and has argued for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Hitchins supports feminism, humanism, and the rights of the unborn. He claims that the so-called woman’s right to choose contradicts humanism. Hitchins notes that most pro-life activists are women from income groups, traditionally Democratic, that represent the masses.
Since Hitchins does not believe in a soul, he doesn’t look for the point in gestation when the soul enters the body and makes the fetus more human, qualifying for rights. He argues that the theory of evolution: “…establishes beyond reasonable doubt that life is a continuum that begins at conception because it can’t begin anywhere else.” [7]
Once it’s conceded that even potential life exists, it eliminates the woman’s right to choose the death of the fetus, Hitchins argues.
Coleman McCarthy, liberal editorial writer for the Washington Post, argues a pro-life position. In the February 18, 1989 issue of the Post, McCarthy points out an inconsistency routinely practiced by Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Marshall automatically votes stays of execution for all on death row, but when he had a chance to “stay” the execution of an innocent 18-week fetus, he failed to comply. McCarthy believes in the reverence-for-life concept as practiced by Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer and believes it should be the case in all life or death issues. A consistent position, according to McCarthy, is to be pro-life and opposed to the death penalty.
Clearly, the pro-life movement is not monopolized by conservative, fundamentalist Christians. Some of the most powerful, objective arguments for fetal rights come from the nonreligious.
Only recently have the liberals and atheists spoken out against abortion. At the
beginning of the abortion era in the 1960s, gut reactions and religious beliefs seemed to confine the opposition to the fundamentalists and Catholics. But the longer the issue is discussed and the more the facts are revealed, the more broad-based the pro-life movement has become.
The issue needs to be seen in the context of a civil-liberties issue, one of aggression versus non-aggression. Once it’s approached in this manner, the emotional arguments of choice, convenience, and reproductive rights will lose out to logic.
“Pro-lifers should oppose capital punishment.”
Liberals supporting abortion frequently argue that pro-lifers contradict their arguments that life is sacred if they support capital punishment. In response, the pro-lifer who supports the death penalty argues that liberals give more concern to the rights of murderers than they do to innocent pre-born children.
I have found that, generally speaking, liberals who are pro-life also maintain a position in opposition to capital punishment. They argue that they have the consistent correct position—against abortion and against capital punishment. Their argument deserves serious consideration.
A unique, but opposite, position occasionally encountered is one where the individual is strongly for abortion and for capital punishment, considered by the proponents to be a consistent position as well.
The two best libertarian arguments against capital punishment are: (1) mistakes can be made and innocent persons will be put to death, and (2) the State is a perpetual threat to us, and the power to deliberately kill another human being is more authority than government should ever be granted, considering its ineptness in just about everything it does.
I come down weakly on the side that argues for capital punishment, since the limited purpose of the state is to protect life, and proven murderers are a danger to us and deserve punishment.
Very few of us would hesitate to shoot an intruder who enters our home and threatens us or our families. Granting this same authority to elected officials, to perform the same act of self-defense in a more deliberate fashion through the police and the court seems appropriate.
But there is still something that bothers me about capital punishment. If we had no one in prison for victimless crimes, the violent criminal could more easily be incarcerated for life.
Recently in my home county, a young dual murderer was given life rather than the death penalty, which means that in fifteen years he’ll likely be out on the streets again. Cases like this make many people more sympathetic to capital punishment than to a life sentence.
I certainly do not champion capital punishment as I do the rights of the pre-born, but inevitably, the subject comes up in trying to prove that opposition to one’s own beliefs regarding abortion is flawed. If someone were to prove to me that the only consistent position is to be pro-life and anti-capital punishment, I would be persuaded. But I have concluded that the two are not related.
Capital punishment and abortion are entirely two different issues, and this explains why every combination of beliefs is encountered. One issue deals with the question of whether pre-born life deserves protection of the law; the other deals with the appropriate penalties for those who commit murder. In one instance, the individual involved committed no act of violence, and in the other, the violent act was extreme and the death of another human being resulted.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in demanding that the positions on abortion and capital punishment be formulated together. When capital punishment is brought up in the abortion debate, it’s usually done rhetorically to place the opposition off-guard. It’s possible to be pro-life and defend the rights of the pre-born, and be either for or against capital punishment.
CHAPTER V
Modern Problems
Modern science is as much of a mixed blessing in the area of abortion as it has been over the centuries in the technology used in producing the weapons of war.
Fire can burn down our houses or keep us warm in the winter. Jet planes can bomb cities or enhance the lifestyles of vacationers or businessmen. Nuclear power can destroy the world or be used to provide clean energy for the world, while solving the problem of acid rain and the greenhouse effect.
Science alone clearly makes no moral judgments.
Today’s medical science allows us to help infertile couples who would have had no hope a few years ago and to keep alive small infants who would have died prior to recent medical advancement. Now new medical knowledge can be used to scientifically kill fetuses at the rate of 1.5 million each year.
Science alone clearly makes no moral judgments. Moral judgments, however, must be made, and only individuals can do that. And when individuals voluntarily come together to form governments to protect life and liberty, a moral consensus is used to guide legislation.
Historically, restrictions against force and fraud, and emphasis on the importance of honoring voluntary commitments, have permeated all legal systems of all successful cultures, reflecting a moral consensus that has existed for thousands of years of civilization.
Legalization of abortion on demand challenges not only the legal system, but the moral judgment of an entire generation and culture. Neither the law nor science can change the moral consensus. Only through personal persuasion and moral behavior can that be achieved.
Surrogate Mothers:
Surrogate mothers are used in cases of infertility for various reasons. But New Jersey’s Baby M case demonstrates how complex and emotional the issue can be—especially if the surrogate mother has second thoughts and wants to keep the baby. The contract which was correctly upheld by the New Jersey court meant that the designated parents were entitled to raise the child and be the legal parents.
Difficult problems like this should be solved with refinements of the contract, not excessive intrusion by the state with numerous rules, regulations, and prohibitions.
When the surrogate mother permits her own egg to be artificially fertilized by the husband of the infertile couple, possibly a contractual clause could be written that recognizes the special circumstances which prompt “a change in mind” by the surrogate mother.
If the surrogate mother were being paid $10,000, as she was in the Baby M case, why not a penalty of $20,000 paid to the infertile couple? It could be written into the contract, should she decide to keep the infant, to compensate for the inconvenience and wretched disappointment caused by her change in mind.
The prohibition of fees for being a surrogate mother serves no useful purpose and cannot be equated to selling children. The use of contracts and voluntary agreements are much more efficient in sorting out problems such as this than are politicians and bureaucrats. In one instance liberty is preserved, and in the other, it’s threatened. A surrogate mother who invests many months of her life and risks her health deserves compensation. This should never be prohibited.
Injuries Incurred During Gestation:
Drug addicts who give birth to addicted babies have been prosecuted for injury to an infant. There’s no doubt that an injury has occurred and that the pregnant woman bears the responsibility for the injury.
But this cannot justify compulsory drug testing of all pregnant women anymore than child battering justifies police cameras in every house to monitor parental activity, or government censors monitoring newspapers to prevent libel. Compulsory testing of pregnant women actually would worsen the problem, because indigent pregnant women as well as many others would refrain from care out of fear. The problem is medical, not legal.
A mother obviously has responsibility for her offspring. But the notion that government should or could regulate prenatal life thoroughly enough to benefit a newborn without total destruction of the principles of privacy and liberty is preposterous.
Everything—exercise, caffeine, alcohol, diet, vitamins, smoking—affects a fetus during gestation. Blatant abuses of health standards and actions that are against clear advice and good judgment could be dealt with in a general category of child abuse by courts and ju
ries who could consider all the evidence and circumstances. But specific laws regulating the eating, drinking, smoking, and exercise habits of pregnant women are unreasonable and extreme intervention and should not be encouraged.
Difficult problems of this sort, when no easy answers are provided by laws dealing with the initiation of force, are better left to voluntary and private solutions, no matter how imperfect. Certainly these offer a more reasonable solution than does government coercion.
Frozen Embryos:
A manmade problem dealing with frozen embryos is compounded by careless and hastily planned agreements by the participating couple and the physician. The idea that thousands of frozen embryos are already sitting in freezers around the world reflects scientific excesses without self-imposed ethical restraints.
Yet the fact that infertile couples can now have a chance to bear a child with the use of modern medical technology is remarkable and praiseworthy.
Should government barge in and regulate the infertility business, either from a strong pro-life or from a pro-abortion position?
Should government barge in and regulate the infertility business?
I see no need for it. Voluntary restraint, for ethical reasons, to limit the number of embryos to deal with seems to be a positive way to minimize the anxiety and legal problems frozen embryos create, especially when they might end up in the middle of a divorce between intended parents.
If the numbers were minimized, it would reduce the chances that the infertility specialist would be involved in “cultivating” human life and disposing of the less desirable.
Public pressure can effect change and do it more fairly than ill-advised legislation.
In the Tennessee case of Mary Sue Davis vs. Junior Davis, the argument was over the right of Mary Sue to be impregnated with one of the embryos and was solved equitably. Certainly when the embryo was conceived, Junior Davis participated with one purpose in mind. It was not explicitly written, but certainly it was implied, that the purpose was for his wife to bear a child.