While musing about the pro-choice vs. pro-life arguments of the abortion debate, I realized that the debate is a symptom of irrationality. This is easier to see by deconstructing the crux of the debate:
that we (humans) have a right to life1.
What does this statement
actually mean? Precise definitions of "humanity" and "life" would require exact physical or chemical descriptions, potentially down to a molecular level. We get by without them because we usually don't require them, but in the context of abortion, they are particularly necessary. Assuming that science eventually provides exact definitions, any laws governing abortion would undoubtedly rely on them. In doing do, such law would create a ludicrous set of boundary conditions--a fetus one mutation shy of being "human" or a nanosecond short of being "alive" would fall outside of the law. These ridiculous boundary conditions plainly show that the concept of sanctioning or criminalizing abortion is entirely arbitrary, because the definitions of "human" and "life" are arbitrary. As in
not founded on reason. "Human" and "life" simply describe different states of matter that we are subjectively connected to.
This leads to two questions:
- Is it right to impose arbitrary laws?
- How should arbitrary laws be defined?
First, it's important to recognize the difference between arbitrary regulations and arbitrary laws. We encounter arbitrary regulations every day, while driving under posted speed limits, for example. However, one must recognize that laws like speed limits are arbitrary in a very different sense than abortion law. The motivation behind laws imposing speed limits is that nobody has the right to endanger others on public streets. It boils down to a "pro-life" ideology, that nobody has the right to endanger someone else's life2. Sure, the actual speed limits themselves are arbitrary, but the crux of the law is quite rational3: it is important to protect life. This assumption is well accepted in society and generally does not require an exact definition for life. However, abortion law is different, because it depends on precisely defining life.
Thus, the crux of the abortion debate centers on the question of how to define a law based on an arbitrary definition. Since the definition of life is arbitrary, any approach depending on it cannot be considered rational or scientific. "Arbitrary definition" is an oxymoron in the context of science, where definitions are simply precise measurements, not arbitrarily selected values4. Rationally creating a law based on an arbitrary definition is like attempting to find two integers which add up to "three-ish".
The matter ends up being settled by the laws the universe imposes on us all. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Might is right. Our arbitrary laws evolve to represent the social groups powerful enough to change them. I, for one, desperately want to live in a society based on reason and science. I hope that the Internet catalyzes this kind of social evolution, that perhaps it will become a possibility within my lifetime. I suppose that as long as we're generally heading toward that goal, that's all I can ask for.
In the meantime, I'm going to stop debating the subject. Humans do NOT have a right to life, it is simply a useful social tenet that doesn't usually require exact definitions for "human" and "life". The universe is decidedly unconcerned with whether any of us are alive, and with the myriad ways in which that may change.
Footnotes1: Note: I'm not claiming that the crux is a general "right to life" for all life. The practice of killing and euthanizing animals (and aborting animal fetuses) is currently well accepted, indicating that a general "right to life" is not crucial to the debate. Also note that I'm not implying that I support killing animals, though I do enjoy a good hamburger, occasionally.
2: Perhaps the only "arbitrary" type of laws I can agree with are those that boil down to protecting people from the actions and choices of others. Our kind of society hinges on the concept that nobody has the right to endanger someone else's life (or create a significantly negative impact on someone else's life). Obviously, though, this ideology becomes difficult to apply in the case of abortion law, due to the ill-defined nature of life. At what point does a human gain the right to life? At conception? At the age the fetus can survive outside the womb? When it can feel pain or know that it is dying? At birth? At an age where it can fend for itself? It's quite a slippery slope, once one starts debating anything beyond conception...
3: Rational, given our subjective context of being alive.
4: Except when dealing with the definitions of units of measurement, of course!
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.png){kind=link}