Recently on television, Rev. Rick Warren asked Senator Obama a series of questions in front of a live audience of evangelical Christians, and then separately asked Senator McCain the same questions. I thought that Obama exhibited far more intelligence and insight than did McCain, who basically answered most of the questions by quoting from his campaign speeches. The format of the program made that easy for McCain to do, especially if the rumors are correct that McCain was able to hear the questions first being put to Obama. However, my subject for today concerns Obama, not McCain. When Obama was asked early in the session about when human life begins, he dodged the question with a line about that matter being above his pay grade. He proceeded to address the abortion issue with an excellent point to the effect that “pro choice” and “pro life” can be compatible. Government policy can be “pro choice” regarding the legality of abortions but still take effective measures to reduce the actual occurrence of abortions. By reducing both unwanted pregnancies and the perceived need by many pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies, these measures (improved sex education and availability of contraceptives, day care or adoption after the live birth, etc.) will do far more to reduce the occurrence of abortions than will simply criminalizing the procedure.
However, I was bothered by Senator Obama’s remark about the philosophical issue being above his pay grade. Very few of us are experts on the subject of when human life begins, and some who claim – implicitly or otherwise – to be authorities on the subject should be regarded with suspicion. Still, this is an important issue to many Americans, and a would-be president should be able to answer the question to the best of his ability. Obama dropped the ball in this case, and he should address the issue, which has obvious implications regarding how an Obama presidency would handle the subjects of abortion and stem cell research.
Personally, I have no expertise regarding philosophical or scientific matters, but I have an opinion, so here goes… Because abortion involves the destruction of a human fetus, and embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of a human embryo, there is a legitimate moral debate on this issue. I do not agree with most of the conclusions by the “right to life” politicians, but their concerns should not be dismissed without any consideration. When does human life begin? I try to take a common sense approach to philosophical issues, without a preset inclination to reach a “liberal” or “conservative” conclusion.
My impression is that the end of human life is usually defined as the ceasing of measurable brain activity, rather than the death of the last cell in the body. To me, it seems reasonable to define the beginning of human life in a similar manner. As I understand it, measurable brain activity generally occurs around the third month of a pregnancy. Prior to that time, the willful termination of a pregnancy is the halting of a potential – not already existing – human life.
After the arrival of brain activity, it is at least arguable that an abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. In my opinion, abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy (prior to brain activity in the fetus) should be permitted without restriction. If this definition of the beginning of human life is even close to making sense, it logically follows that embryonic stem cell research does not violate the principle that “human life is sacred,” because the embryo is destroyed long before it can take on “human” qualities, except by potential.
I am aware that many people believe, encouraged by church doctrine, that the newly fertilized egg is a “human” life, and that the willful termination of such a life is murder. Apparently, to these people, there is no moral difference between destroying a day old embryo, a third trimester fetus, or a five-year-old child; each action would be equally reprehensible. Many of the pro-choice advocates also seem to assume that there is no difference between destroying a day old embryo and a third trimester fetus; both should be available without constraints. Both sides are wrong, in my opinion, even if both sides can correctly agree that killing a five-year-old child is out of bounds. It is disturbing to me that both major political parties seem to have their own party orthodoxies on this issue. Either you must commit to “protect the life of the unborn” (in the case of Republicans), or you must commit to a “woman’s right to choose (in the case of Democrats), and in either case without exception. Not everybody in Congress is so extreme in either direction, but the extremists on both sides have control over the debate. I am glad to see that, with Obama’s influence, the Democrats are moving away from the most extreme “pro choice” doctrine.
In general, public policy should try to assure that if abortions are going to be done at all, they should be done at an early stage of the pregnancy. Except for the extremists on both sides, most people would agree that an early stage abortion is more acceptable than a late stage abortion. I am sure that an early stage abortion is also less risky to the health of the mother than a later stage abortion. Of course, it should also be generally agreed that prevention of an unwanted pregnancy is far preferable to any abortion. This implies that condoms and “morning after” pills should be easily available. Maybe that is a side issue, but I believe it is hypocritical for some “pro-life” politicians to grandstand about the evils of abortion and at the same time try to block or restrict the availability of measures that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy from getting started. Sex education in the schools is also important. I hope that none of our lawmakers still believes that if sex is not discussed with America’s teenagers, maybe they will not become interested in it. Abstinence is good, but as a practical matter, preaching abstinence-only does not work very well.
The Supreme Court, in its famous 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, tried to reach a sensible solution to the abortion issue. This will not endear me to most of my fellow Obama supporters, but personally, I believe that the decision was a mistake, although I am not rooting for that decision to be overturned. If the guidelines of that decision were established by statute, I would endorse it. The guidelines are sensible public policy, but the courts are not supposed to be in the business of setting policy. That is the responsibility of the elected branches of government. For better or worse, if that decision is overruled, it will force the other branches of the government to deal with the issue. Maybe the result will be a statute with similar guidelines to what was set in Roe vs. Wade. A reversal of Roe vs. Wade by the Court would create some problems, however. One problem, assuming that Congress would not step in and set some nationwide rules regarding the permissibility of abortions, is that the availability of abortions would vary greatly among the different states. It is not hard to imagine, for example, that Illinois (home state of Barack Obama and yours truly) and neighboring Indiana would have radically different sets of rules. The effect of state-by-state rules would be highly discriminatory, both by geographical and economic circumstances. Therefore, while I have doubts about the legal correctness of the 45-year-old decision of the Court, I would prefer not to have it reversed.
Barack Obama is a constitutional expert, and he can articulate the merits of Roe vs. Wade far better than I can (that is definitely not above his pay grade). As to what constitutes a “human” life, with independent rights, Obama may not be a true expert, but he should be able to make a credible case for what he believes, and I think he should do so.
