Janet Harris in Washington Post: Abortion is Not a Moral Issue - You Read that Right

“A Guttmacher Institute survey of women in the United States seeking abortions found that 3 percent said the main reason was a fetal health problem, and 4 percent cited a problem with their own health. The percentage of women seeking an abortion because they were victims of rape or incest was less than 1.5 percent.”

No, the above statistics were not cited by some pro-life “whacko” trying to undermine the oft made abortion argument about the woman’s health, rape, and fetal problems.  Let’s note that what these statistics tell us, assuming their accuracy, is that over 90% of all abortions take place because the woman prefers not to have the baby. Rather, the author of the above quote is a woman named Janet Harris, writing in the Washington Post on August 15, 2014.  Her reasoning in citing these statistics: “By implying that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue, pro-choice advocates forfeit control of the discussion to anti-choice conservatives.”

In fact, Ms. Harris goes further.  She says, “To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman. As a result, the question “What kind of future would the woman have as a result of an unwanted pregnancy?” gets sacrificed.”

Wow.  At least she’s being honest.  I have long believed that the pro-choice crowd ought to stop nonsensical arguments like it’s a woman’s body, or a fetus isn’t really a human being, or it’s between a woman and her doctor.  Ms. Harris just says it: for her abortion isn’t a moral issue, it’s a simple cost/benefit determination.  Does it make sense based on whatever reasons the woman might determine to have the baby?  It’s like following a flow chart with yes/no answers which direct you towards the relevant action.  Ms. Harris explained her own decision to have an abortion this way “An unwanted pregnancy would have derailed my future, making it difficult for me to finish college and have the independent, productive life that I’d envisioned.”  She weighed what she wanted and perceived, rightly or wrongly, that having a child wouldn’t allow her to do what she wanted, when she wanted, under the circumstances she wanted.

It is common coin in the abortion debate (true or not – I don’t know) that one of the reasons for shifting public sentiment against abortion is the availability of pre-natal technology, particularly in-utero pictures of the baby, that has led to a more common understanding of the fetus as a human being, not just some kind of lump of tissue.  In other words, the debate has shifted to the determination of what exactly does it mean to be human.  Ms. Harris acknowledges this in saying talking about abortion as a difficult choice gives the baby a status – something the pro-choice crowd has long found one of the most perplexing and persistent problems with their position.  We all know that when a woman has a fetus developing in her uterus there is only one possible outcome if she carries the child to term and has the child – it will come out a human being.  When we couldn’t see those little rascals wiggling around in utero it was easy to calm ourselves into calling it a fetus and pretending that meant nothing morally.  Now, not so much.

The fundamental problem here, though, isn’t simply about abortion.  It’s more about what does it mean to be human.  Ms. Harris is, whether she acknowledges it or not, claiming that our determination of whether someone is or isn’t a human being is not a moral issue.  While Ms. Harris seems to be arguing for some sort of cost/benefit measurement, how can one do so when the costs and benefits are unknown?  She cannot possibly be claiming that she had full information about what kind of person her child would have become had she chosen life rather than abortion.  Ironically, she argues that having a child would have derailed the independent and productive life she envisioned.  How could Ms. Harris know she would actually have an independent, productive life?  By what standard, moreover, is she measuring independent and productive?  She doesn’t say.  Perhaps some might argue Ms. Harris is not actually living an independent and productive life, despite her own self-analysis.

My argument about information cuts both ways, of course  – her child could have been the next Albert Einstein or the next Jeffrey Dahmer.  Nonetheless, in order to reasonably argue the decision is purely a cost/benefit analysis implies sufficient, if not full, information to make the most rational choice.  Would she, had she known her child would invent a cure for breast cancer or a new type of vehicle that runs on air, have decided otherwise?  Therein lies the fundamentally interesting reality about being human: we simply don’t know the future sufficiently to come to rational conclusions about such details.

 

As if her argument were not ominous enough in the abortion debate, what about end of life decisions?  Are older, but practically non-functioning adults no longer human?  Do we define human being simply based on our economic or practical viability?  What about people with Down’s Syndrome who are functioning reasonably well, but will never be completely independent?  Are they human, or not, Ms. Harris?  What about a baby who is born with a debilitating disease but the parents decide to take care of her and love her until she dies at say, age 5, from Tay-Sachs disease?  Was that child a human being, Ms. Harris?  Upon what basis do you make your decision?  What about artists – are they really necessary, Ms. Harris?  I mean, cost/benefit wise do we really need art or music?  It’s nice, but maybe not sufficiently beneficial.  Why would you choose to treat artists as humans, versus accountants or truck drivers or fast food workers?

Who gets to tell us if we’re human or not?  Ms. Harris, are you prepared to make the definitions?  More to the point, are you prepared to live with your own definitions when you no longer meet them and have to be terminated for being non-human?  Really?

Finally, is Ms. Harris arguing morals don't exist at all or that only abortion isn't a moral issue?  Wonder if Ms. Harris has children?  How would she feel if a drunk driver killed one?  Not a moral issue then?  Bet she'd be pretty angry.  In my experience, even many atheists want to claim they're moral people (for reasons that continue to confound me, but the atheists I've come across assure me it's because I'm blinded by my theism or I'm just stupid).  You see, there's a reason even the pro-abortion crowd believes abortion is a moral issue - because it's about human life.  And only the most crass, cold-hearted, corrupted souls will argue that whether to take human life or not is anything less than a moral issue.  It could be more than a moral issue, but it's never less.  Even abortion advocates get this, Ms. Harris, why don't you?