That's the question asked in this interesting New York Times article. The article is about the use of genetic testing to screen for Downs Syndrome and that some women decide to abort those babies.
Mollie at GetReligion explains that the story is about the discomfort some in the pro-choice movement have when discussing what limits should be put on abortion. Certainly, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. But most of the pro-choice movement is uncomfortable with the idea that the fetus might have a right that supercedes the woman's "choice." Mollie points out that this argument is uncomfortable because of "different first principles."
In logic and philosophy, first principles are those axioms that cannot be deduced from other principles. Many in the pro-life movement have the first principle that all humans — born or unborn — have the right to life. From this principle, others develop. It might be said that the first principle in the pro-choice movement is just that: choice. For pro-choicers, their guiding notion is that all mature women have the right to choose whether to abort their fetus. Add into that mix, of course, that most opinions on abortion aren’t based on first principles but gut reactions, emotions, or other methods.
This is what I have observed in virtually any argument about abortion. Pro-lifers will argue about the intrinsic value of life and that it should be honored, regardless of the hardship or inconvenience to the pregnant woman. Pro-choicers argue that the woman's bodily integrity is supreme and must be supported. Such conversations are basically futile, as both sides are arguing from positions that will not change no matter how persuasive rebuttal arguments are.
Amy Harmon's New York Times article shows how ambivalent pro-choicers can be where genetic testing is concerned. Even the most ardent pro-choice supporter shrinks from advocating abortion simply because a child might have arthritis later in life. Or that a couple might abort a child for sex selection purposes.
This is one of the reasons it is much easier to support pro-life arguments, in my opinion. If you start from the position that all children, even the handicapped or unplanned, are precious, you don't have to draw difficult lines about which deaths are acceptable and which are not.
|