Party of Death II

How does the position that, from conception on, humans have a right not to be killed mesh with Mormon theology? At first glance, you'd think that because Mormons are strongly and almost uniformly pro-life, (both culturally and as a mater of doctrine) this conception-is-the-beginning position would mesh well. However, Mormon doctrine, which allows for abortion in cases of incest and rape, is inconsistent with life beginning at conception. Also, Mormons are allowed to use the pill.

Ponnuru argues that drawing any line after conception leads to a strange, unworkable duality. While specifically addressing the argument that humans acquire the right not to die when they acquire some higher level of brain function, he writes:

First: By treating human organisms and "persons" as separate, though mostly overlapping, categories, it assumes that a distinction can be made between a person and the body that person merely "inhabits." The "person" is an aware, conscious "self" that floats above the body, as a sort of ghost in the machine. An embryonic (and fetal, and infant) body comes into existence before this person does, and the person can die before the body does. But this dualism is untenable. It contradicts everyday experience: We sense and perceive, which are clearly bodily actions, but also engage in conceptual thinking, which cannot be reduced to bodily actions; and it is clearly the same subject who does both types of things. The dualist who utters his idea refutes in the act of voicing it. We are (among other things) our bodies. p.86

I guess you could say he recognizes some separation when he says "engaging in conceptual thinking . . . cannot be reduced to bodily actions." So we are more than just our bodies, but also our bodies. Still it seems to me that Ponnuru decries the idea that we are somehow separable from our bodies, and that is exactly what Mormons believe: body and spirit are separate (duality). Our spirit enters our body at (or probably some time before) birth and exit our bodies at death.

Accepting this duality, Mormons can then draw a principled line after conception. The question for a Mormon is not: when does "biological" life begin, but instead when does the spirit enter the body? Drawing the line there means Mormons can allow for some abortion before the spirit enters the body, for instance in cases of rape and incest. It also means Mormons can support embryo destructive research if the embryo is destroyed before the spirit enters the body.

Still there are problems with this line. For instance, if it's okay to kill an embryo before the spirit enters, why is it not okay to have an abortion for other reasons, (like birth control) before the spirit enters the body? Also when does the spirit enter the body?

There may be an answer to the first question. Mormons believe that the we come to earth to get a body. Clearly what is forming inside the mother at conception is a body, so perhaps there is still some moral reason not to disrupt this process or destroy this body even though it doesn't contain a spirit. Perhaps the reason that abortion is "like murder" , but not actually murder, is because abortion destroys the forming body, which is clearly an important part of our souls (body and spirit together). if we are prohibiting abortion for this lesser reason, then we might also permit abortion in cases where there is compelling reason, like to find a cure for disease or to restore choice to a woman who was raped. But if this is the case, what is the compelling reason for allowing abortion in the case of incest? The mother was not denied her initial choices. Or what is the reason for allowing Mormons to use the pill? Convenient birth control doesn't seem like a great reason to allow for even pre-spirit abortions.

And the second question is harder. If we suppose that Mormons permit abortion in cases of rape and incest because the abortion happens before the spirit enters the body, Mormons should still prohibited abortion after the spirit enters the body. So when exactly does that happen? Mormons doctrine allows women who fit within one of the exceptions to make the decision to have an abortion based on their own revelation. Not exactly a bright line.

The Party of Death

Just finished reading The Party of Death.  I wanted to sharpen my thinking about life-and-death issues, and the book has helped me do that, so it's a worthwhile reading. Being pro-life, I agree with the majority of the positions Ponnuru takes. Still there are areas where following the principles in the book lead to uncomfortable, or possibly incorrect, conclusions.

Boiling down the arguments in the book, Ponnuru contends that all humans have the right to life and that life begins at conception. Abortion, then, is killing human life and immoral. (A pretty standard pro-life argument). While abortion proponents argue that there is some other line to draw after conception, Ponnuru counters that those arguments rest on the premise that not all humans have the same claim on life. He then goes through these arguments and shows why the different line in the sand are unprincipled or unworkable.

My first problem with saying the right to life begins at conception is that some forms of birth control then become abortion. The morning after pill, which discharges fertilized egg, is the same as having an abortion. Normal birth control pills sometimes also discharge fertilized eggs too. Ponnuru says taking the pill is different from abortion because, in abortion the intent is to end human life, whereas taking the pill may have that effect of ending life, but the intent is not to end life. Intent certainly is an important part of our culpability for our actions, but actions that result in death still result in death, regardless of their intent. Thus, I think that, if you view conception as the beginning of human life you also have to be against the pill as a form of negligent killing. As an analogy, if abortion were the equivalent to first-degree murder, then using the pill would be negligent homicide--not as bad, but still morally reprehensible.

Ponnuru does concede "there may be an argument against playing Russian Roulette [by using the pill]." That's an understatement. There's not just an argument; the logic compels a ban on using the pill. (Other birth control methods that prevent conception, like condoms, would still be fine, though.)

The second problem with contending that conception is the beginning of life is that no allowance should be make for abortion cases of rape or incest. People like to frame the abortion debate in terms of whether or not a woman has a "right to choose [an abortion]." The-right-to-choose language, however, is a canard because a right to choose will always give way to the right to life. The issue is not choice, but when life begins (or the right to no be killed begins). But once this "meaningful" life begins, what does it matter whether or not the mother ever had a choice in the matter? If the baby has a right not to die, it shouldn't matter how it came into existence. If meaningful life begins at conception, there should be no exceptions to ban on abortion for incest or rape.

I think this logic has some important implications for Mormons, which I'll get to in a future post.

Abortion and Libertarianism II

In my last post I argue that a person can believe in libertarian principles and still reach a pro-life policy position because of the factual question of whether the unborn child (or fetus) should be recognized as a person with rights to freedom.

Actually, it's not so much a factual question as ethical one. We know that the unborn are alive, we just don't know (or we don't agree) that they should be entitled to the same rights as other humans.

Writing the other post, I thought of one attractive pro-choice libertarian argument: we know that we should maximize the freedom of adult women, however, the rights of the unborn are debatable. Faced with this ambiguity, it makes sense for Libertarians to be pro-choice because restricting abortion necessarily restricts the freedom of pregnant women, but only potentially denies the rights to the unborn.

Of course, some if not most people will decide the question of whether the unborn have rights resolutely one way of the other. Once a person resolves that the unborn is human and entitled to the rights of all other people, then libertarian principles can just as easily lead ( actually I think they compel) that person to become pro-life.

Furthermore, a libertarian who cannot resolve the issue of whether or when the unborn are entitled to rights, should recognize that, the restricting a pregnant woman's right to abortion is only a slight reduction of freedom, while abortion is total denial of rights to the unborn. Thus, a fence-sitting libertarian must lean very heavily in the direction of no rights for the unborn before he can use that ambiguity as a justification to hold pro-choice views.

Libertarianism and Abortion

I find myself becoming more libertarian. Libertarians are frequently described as a hodge-podge of liberal and conservative values: they are generally thought of as liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. Foreign policy issues seem to split libertarians roughtly in half.

That's not a very good description of libertarianism. Instead, the fundamental principles guiding libertarianism is that individual freedom should be maxamized. libertarians are, in fact, classic liberals, in the Lockean sense of the word "liberal."

I generally agree with the premise of libertarianism and most of the policies that flow from the premise. and yet there are still some issues where libertarians and I have divergent policy preferences. As part of my new blog I thought I would explore these issues, and whether the policy preference of most libertarians follows from libertarian principles. Then, I'll comment on why or why not I agree with the libertarian policy preference. Either that, or I'll just write whatever pops into my head.

Let's start with abortion. Abortion is one issue where I part ways with most libertarians, who seem to favor abortion. Because they favor maximizing individual freedom, they believe in allowing adult women to do what they want with their bodies, including having an abortion. The premise is that what is aborted is part of a woman's body.

Of course, the maximization of freedom requires limiting some individual freedom to maximize everyones freedom. For example, I can punch the air all I want, but I am not fee to punch your nose, because that would impinge on your freedom. So we have to curtain some behaviors in order to maximize overall freedom.

While abortion then, increases a woman's freedom to do as she wishes with her body, it also decreases the freedom of the baby inside the woman to basically zero. In this case the fist of "abortion" is punching the "nose" of the unborn.

Of course, that anaylsis, assumes that the fetus growing inside the pregnant woman is a child. That's a factual premise that I'm sure pro-choice libertarians would take issue with. But whatever the factual truth, the principles of libertarianism do not require libertarians to be pro-choice.