Dominic Gallagher
Staff Writer
There is no middle ground in the debate on abortion. There are two positions in this trench war about human values, the middle ground is for the dead and unlike WW1 there can be no truce . No compromise can be logically coherent. To argue that exceptions should be made in case of rape is an unreasoned position devoid of thought. Either you are pro-life and life is sacred from conception and no human can die to appease another regardless of circumstance. Or you are pro-choice and the embryo is not a human being at early stages but only when consciousness is thought to begin and hence you can end its life regardless of whether there has been a rape or not. If the human embryo’s life is valued you cannot kill it, if not you can kill it no matter what.
Youth Defence, in asserting that there is “always a better option” than abortion, have the courage to stand by their convictions. Pro-choice groups have a right to attack this position but never on the basis of the exception of rape. They believe that you have a choice regardless of whether it is a case of rape or not, rape has absolutely no bearing on their argument. To argue on this basis is an underhand and insincere attempt to bring in abortion on demand by pulling at the heart strings. It is using the horror of rape to mask an even greater horror.
Tears are a powerful and honest human act yet they can become dangerous when they obscure our vision. Below I will outline why pro-choice are wrong even when they fight fairly and don’t try to tear gas their opponents.
Human life has two values. A personal value and an intrinsic human value. The personal value is the importance we attribute to beings capable of having personal experience. By experience I mean happiness and sadness, pain and pleasure. Personal value is not unique to human beings as animals such as dogs are capable of this experience.
Intrinsic human value is the value which humans have simply because they are human. Theists would understand this intrinsic value as our soul, our spiritual substance. However secular humanists also regard this value as important. It is enshrined in every democratic constitution and is the foundation of all human rights. The belief that “all men are created equal” does not stem from the ability to think rationally, equality of ability or usefulness to society. For example a person with a severe learning disability is no less equal in human rights and dignity than a Prime minister. Its foundation is instead in our shared humanity and the value we place upon it. It is this humanity which demands that all races and both sexes are treated equally.
Pro-choice groups seek to conflate both the personal and intrinsic values and argue that they both occur simultaneously. This cannot be the case as otherwise we will find it impossible to distinguish between the rights of dogs etc. and humans as both have personal values. If we appeal to rationality as a heightened degree of personal value to try and distinguish humanity from dogs we again run into the problem of people with severe learning disabilities whose rational faculties are weaker than normal and yet remain equally valuable.
Pro-life groups believe that humans have intrinsic value from the moment of conception as a unique individual distinguishable from the mother. Human foetuses at a very earlier stage have intrinsic value but no personal value. They cannot feel or think but nonetheless they are still human.
What is the relationship between these two different values? A philosophical mind shrinks from the idea of asymmetry in their values. They must be equal as they are both essential elements in making us who we are. Our own worth and importance cannot be considered without both values and so neither value can predominate.
In abortion the intrinsic human value is destroyed because the personal value of the mother is affected. The mother would be unhappy to have a child and so the human foetus is killed. However the entirety of the mother’s personal value is not at stake. This would only be the case if the mother was going to die and the personal value would cease to be. Even if the mother will be negatively affected her ability to experience happiness will remain after the child is born and presumably given up for adoption. Therefore only a partial, temporary element of the mother’s personal value is at stake and this is not great enough to permanently destroy the intrinsic value of the human foetus.
The argument from women’s rights is a complete contradiction. You cannot assert the right to equality by destroying the human value upon which our equality is based. This argument holds even in extreme cases like rape. It is highly debated whether or not an abortion offers any help to the already distressed mother. I believe it will only add further trauma in years to come. However even if it is beneficial the abortion remains unjustified as through time and counselling the mother can recover to find happiness again. The suffering to the mother’s personal value remains temporary, not a great enough justification for permanent destruction of the foetus’ intrinsic value. In extreme situations some women are at risk of suicide however improved care and counselling can avert this tragedy from happening. Furthermore this quick fix solution completely ignores the women who are at risk of suicide after having abortions. A government funded study in Finland in 1997 found that women who had had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within the next year compared to women who gave birth.
Finally what of those cases when the mother could die and it is her personal and intrinsic value pitted against only the intrinsic value of her child? This scenario arises in ectopic pregnancies. In such instances the mother’s life and it’s greater worth of two values takes precedence. However these are not abortions as the destruction of the unborn child is incidental to the medical treatment. It is not a direct aim of the medical treatment and Ireland therefore already allows for such extreme cases.
A lot of people do not struggle to understand this debate but rather float along like driftwood on the tide, reassured in the belief that we are moving steadily towards progress. This idea is the rotten leftover of a Hegelian system of philosophy that has long since been rejected. It is dangerously stupid to believe that our world can only change for the better, not every new idea that is gaining momentum is a force for good. Hitler’s death camps and Karl Marx’s communism were new ideas at their time. Our society is like any individual who changes, there is both good and bad elements to it. It is our duty to choose between them.
Ireland is the only country in Europe that does not have abortion in any form and I am proud of our resistance. We have the chance to be the light that guides Europe through this dark period as we did before as the land of “Saints and Scholars”. It is fitting that Youth Defence should lead the charge. In an Ireland rocked by the greed and self interest of the recession it is in our youth that we must seek a renewal of our beliefs in human value.
