Hierarchy of Rights

There's almost nothing left to say about abortion, it's been around for so long. Nevertheless, I've found myself thinking about abortion lately. As I see it, Abortion is basically the conflict between two legitimate rights -- choice and life. I do believe people have a right to choose when possible. There is however, a hierarchy of rights and when they come in conflict, the higher trumps the lower. Thus, in the case of abortion, life trumps choice.

This should be obvious. You should be able to choose to shoot a gun, for instance, but you shouldn't be able to shoot (or at least there should be consequences for shooting) a gun at a person. Hence life supersedes choice.

I'm sure that the liberal response will be; ok, but in the case of abortion when does life actually begin? I think in biological sense, its clear that life begins at conception. As far as I understand, most any biologist will tell you that. But to encourage dialogue, I will say that I don't think that conception necessarily constitutes the begining of human life. Rather I would say it constitutes potential human life. A sperm and an egg is not a human. It is however a potential human, which deserves our respect. Its also clear to me that long before birth, human life has begun. If a baby can be born two to three month premature, and live and survive independent of the mother are we not to assume if that baby were to remain in the womb durring it would be just as alive? Thus partial-birth is clearly putting an end to a human life.

Liberals would argue that its the mothers body, and she should be able to do what she wants with her body. But that's not entirely true. You can't put illegal drugs into your body. If a Siamese (conjoined for you evangelicals) twin where to kill his attached sibling would we argue that the twin was within his right, because it was after all his body? That would be absurd. There are limits to our legitimate choices, and that's as it should be.

Yes, in abortion choice and life come in conflict, but really it doesn't have to be that way. They only come into conflict after a series of poor choices. With a few exceptions (which are less than one percent of abortions) a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy she will later abort, has made at least two choices: 1) to have sex; 2) to not use an effective contraceptive. Only then does choice three, abortion, come in conflict with life.

Now for the remaining less than one percent.

When a pregnancy puts the mother's life in jeopardy, then there is a direct life to life conflict, and the mothers life should take precedent over the babies life, primarily because there are others whose lives would be adversely affected by her death. She undoubtedly has family, dependents, friends. Maybe this is sentimentality... I'll think about this more. If however the mother knew the pregnancy would put her life in jeopardy, then there should be some repercussions. Maybe she should have to give birth. Maybe she should be allowed to have an abortion, but then be sterilized. There doesn't seem to be any excuse for someone who knows they will have pregnancy complications, to get pregnant and then choose an abortion.

Rapes presents a somewhat different dilemma. When a woman is raped, she is denied the choice to be impregnated, or to participate in those activities that precipitate pregnancy. Before I started this hierarchy of rights thought experiment I would have no problem with a woman having an abortion if impregnated by rape. Now, however it seems to me this case may be the true 'Choice vs. Life' scenario. In the case of an elective abortion (the other 99 percent of abortions) the woman has already made choices that directly resulted in pregnancy, and by doing so, forfeits and further right to choose in the matter to the baby, or potential human life to live. In rape the mother was denied the choice to conceive, or not to concieve through no fault of her own. Still I think that life should trump choice, and the raped woman should give birth to the child.

Here the distinction between human life and potential human life may come into play. A woman's right to 'choose' may trump potential human life, when the choice was previously denied her because of rape. On the other hand, the right to 'choose' an elective abortion doesn't trump the right of the human life, or even the right of potential human life to exist. between the right of a woman to have a third choice in a matter of pregnancy and the right of a potential human to live, we must choose the latter ever time.

On the whole, if we are to err, we should err on the side of life. Therefore, abortion should be avoided all together if possible. Abortion is allowable in cases of rape or when the mothers life is in jeopardy, but is far from automatic, and in fact, the default even in these cases should be to protect the unborn human.