Recently a student challenged me to consider my views about the implication of viewing the fetus as a person.
She pointed out that for any person like me with a principle based ethics, if they believe that human life begins at conception and innocent life must never be taken, then terminating a pregnancy or using the results of such, as in the case of using fetal stem cells, would have to be something they would wish to see prohibited under law. In fact, for a person who held such a view, this kind of research would be implicated with the slaughtering of innocents on a vast scale, since thousands of fetuses are terminated each year in North America. For such a person, our society would appear to be little better than NAZI Germany. Both facilitated the death of millions of innocent people.
I have some sympathy with such a view, as I share the principles that life begins at conception and that innocent life should never be taken. (I will note, sometimes I question the first principle and believe that life begins at the drinking of the first martini;). However, what prevents me from concluding that I live in a society little better than NAZI Germany is that I also hold to the principle that all people deserve due process. This principle basically holds that if you are going to deprive someone of a substantive right, such as the right to life, or the right to freedom, etc., this can only be done after a detailed and fair public process of law that properly considers the relevant facts in determining the legitimacy of infringing on such rights. In the case of women seeking to terminate pregnancies time restraints (ectopic pregnancy, complexities due to other health conditions, etc) and simple limits on our ability to know and understand internal experiences relevant to health and survival possibilities (pain, mental health considerations), make it impossible for a workable public system of due process to be created to "vet" requests for the termination of pregnancies. The old "panels of 3 doctors" making a potential life and death decision (equivalent to decisions in court cases when capital punishment still existed) were a travesty of the notion of due process. I'm glad the Canadian supreme court struck them down on the grounds that they undermine women's right to security of person (not to mention that such panels would be completely out of the question in our overburdened medical system of today). The American Supreme court added the notion that such processes cannot possibly protect a woman's right to privacy (those requesting are not criminals, so their privacy must be protected.) However, I still believe that our society has an obligation to recognize the personhood of the fetus.
I think this could be fairly accomplished by making a woman herself the judge of access to termination. A women requesting such procedures would have to sign a declaration that she had considered the personhood of the fetus and made a judgement that her life was threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy (a judgment kept as a closed public record). Doing so, she should be able to obtain a termination without impediment at public expense. The fact that our society has yet to implement any laws about abortion since the landmark cases, such as the system I just suggested, is regrettable, but it also means I cannot simply presume that mass murder is going on. It might be, to some unknown extent, but in this particular area of human responsibility the details and degree of this cannot be presumed according to my principle based position.
My natural law and natural rights outlooks lead me to view ethics as an extremely complex interplay between relevant moral principles and the natural capacities at the root of our duties. To the best of my ability to judge, I believe my principle based analysis of this issue is the right one. But there could be matters I have overlooked or possible weaknesses in the deeper defenses I have for the specific principles I have brought to bear on this particular issue. So I also remain dependent on others to help me consider the weaknesses and potential blind spots that might remain unconsidered in my proposed ethical and legal solution to this issue. I look forward to any thoughtful comments others might have on my proposal.
Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby
it is murder
