ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for morality

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 3: Let There Be Reason

by Leave a Comment

In my previous blog post on Dr. Parker’s book,[1] I addressed the complexities of Dr. Parker’s faith, which he wields in an attempt to give himself credibility and assert that advancing abortion access “is precisely the Christian thing to do.”[2] After an in-depth analysis of the nature of his beliefs, I concluded that, while Dr. Parker is evidently a man of deep faith and spiritual convictions, he cannot claim to be a Christian, as properly understood in relation to the Bible. Now I turn my attention to one final subject: reason.

I have frequently argued—and continue to believe to this day—that the core question that must be answered in the abortion debate is this: Is the preborn fetus a human?[3] This question is fundamental because, while it may sound empowering and even common-sense to use the language of being “pro-choice”, whether or not being “pro-choice” is, in fact, positive depends entirely on the nature of the choice being exercised.

We would correctly denounce anyone who claimed moral superiority for being “pro-choice” if the choice in question was the choice to inflict cruelty on animals. We would also correctly decry the suggestion that it is positive to be “pro-choice” if the choice in question involves afflicting physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual abuse on another human being. And there are many who are currently denouncing Elon Musk’s infamous “free speech maximalism”—which, arguably, is a fundamentally “pro-choice” position, insofar as he is advocating for the unfettered right to choose what one says in public spaces—precisely on the basis of their concern that some people may use their choice to perpetuate hatred and harm.[4] To be clear, I am not comparing the choice to have an abortion with these other choices or suggesting that these choices are all morally equivalent. I am simply making the point that, before we laud or decry being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion, we must first determine what is being chosen. In this context, that requires us to know whether or not the unborn fetus is a human.

Since Dr. Parker is a doctor—specifically, an OB-GYN—I had hoped that he would have a well-reasoned answer to this question. And I should clarify that I did not presume that his well-reasoned answer would be identical to mine. Quite the contrary, in fact. I knew that Dr. Parker was an abortionist, and so I knew that his answer to the question of the humanity of the unborn fetus would support his pro-abortion position. Still, my hope and expectation was that, as a physician, he would have an evidence-based, well-reasoned answer to this question. And that itself would have made his position respectable, even if it was an answer that I ultimately disagreed with.

It was with genuine disappointment, then, that I found myself reading the same tired statements that I have heard repeated over and over again by other abortion supporters, statements that lack intellectual consistency and coherent reasoning. While I by no means claim to be a scientific expert or authority on matters of healthcare, I—like any human being—am still able to test the veracity of Dr. Parker’s claims and evaluate the quality and consistency of his reasoning. What’s more, a large part of my professional expertise requires me to carefully scrutinize the integrity and logical coherence of arguments, whether my own or those of others. And my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s claims, despite being sincerely held, are not scientifically supported or well-reasoned.

Unpacking Arguments Against the Humanity of the Unborn

One of the first things to note is that Dr. Parker was willing to overstate his position in ways that contradicted the other authoritative voices he cited in support of his position. In the chapter “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the bold assertion that he “can authoritatively attest that life does not begin at conception.”[5] Fascinatingly enough, he contradicts himself a few sentences later when he writes: “the fact is, as Justice Harry Blackmun so eloquently wrote way back in 1973, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, there is no historical, philosophical, theological, or even scientific consensus on when life begins.”[6] The problem is that Dr. Parker cannot authoritatively assure readers that life does not begin at conception if there is, in fact, a lack of scientific consensus on when human life begins.

So, let us unpack Dr. Parker’s claims in more detail.

In the Prologue to his book, while discussing how he approaches interactions with the women he provides abortion to, Dr. Parker writes the following:

But if they ask me questions, as they frequently do, I answer them as their doctor—and not as their confessor or their friend—and I give them the medical truth.

Before twenty-two weeks, a fetus is not in any way equal to “a baby” or “a child.” It cannot survive outside the uterus because it cannot breathe—not even on a respirator. It cannot form anything like thoughts. Up until twenty-nine completed gestational weeks, despite what the antis may say, the scientific consensus is that it cannot feel anything like pain.[7]

This paragraph is fairly representative of Dr. Parker’s core arguments around the unborn fetus not being human (although he does make a number of other side points that I will address in an effort to be comprehensive, thorough, and fair.)

Value at Viability?

Dr. Parker’s first core argument is that the fetus’ lack of viability precludes him or her from being recognized as a human being. This is consistent throughout the book. For example, when discussing the post-abortion process of piecing the unborn fetus back together to ensure that no part has been left inside the woman, Dr. Parker comments that, “no matter what these parts may look like, this is organic matter that does not add up to anything that can live on its own.”[8]

The argument about viability is a common one. For those who support abortion, there is this ongoing difficulty of identifying when human life begins, while somehow preserving the position that abortion is mostly permissible. Notwithstanding the Canadian legal fiction that a fetus remains sub-human until the moment of birth, very few people truly believe that human life only starts at the moment of birth. How could they? After all, what is the difference between the preborn child a few seconds before birth and the newborn child a few seconds after birth? Humanity is not magically endowed by the birth canal. And so human life must begin before birth. Of course, then there is the matter of late-term abortions, which many abortion supporters find intuitively uncomfortable. In the desperate effort to pinpoint a logical moment in pregnancy at which humanity begins, viability frequently emerges as one solution, perhaps because human life beginning at viability both sounds more logical than life beginning at birth and simultaneously shields most abortions from legal intervention.

The problem is this: the point of viability is not static. As medical technology and healthcare interventions advance, the point at which a child is viable has moved earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. When the US Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in Roe v Wade, it wrote: “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[9] In the decades since then, progress in medical technology has steadily moved that line earlier and earlier. Dr. Parker seems to assert viability is somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks.[10] And, despite Dr. Parker’s bold proclamations that a preborn fetus before twenty-two weeks “cannot” and “will not” survive, “not ever”, that is simply not the case (a verifiable fact that I established in my previous blog post). Many children have survived being born before 22 weeks gestation, including one young boy who recently celebrated his first birthday, conquering all odds after being given a 0% change of survival when he was born at 21 weeks and 2 days.

Not only has the point of viability changed with time and with technological advancement, but it will also change depending on the country in question and the medical technology that is available in different locations within that country. To suggest that something as concrete and scientifically verifiable as when human life begins is based on something as varied and unstable as the point at which the preborn fetus is viable is ludicrous. It is to conflate a static, existential truth (namely, what constitutes “personhood”) with a highly varied and contextual medical determination (what constitutes “viability”).

Interestingly enough, Dr. Parker seems to indirectly concede this point. While he at times discusses viability in a medical sense, he shifts his definition of the term, eventually drawing on a more philosophical and abstract understanding of “viability”. In a longer passage, Dr. Parker elaborates even further on how crucial viability is to his conception of human life:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die.

The antis don’t want to hear this, but “life” is a gray area. There is a period, between about twenty-two and twenty-five weeks of gestational age, during which “life” is a vague state. A fetus may or may not be viable in that period, and there’s no way to reliably predict outcomes. A fetus born during this period is not definitely consigned life. Nor is it destined to die. Depending on various different factors—its weight, its lung development, the health of its mother, the expertise of the doctors in charge, and the technological capacity of the neonatal facility—it may live. Or not. And if it lives, it may grow up into a healthy adult, or it may suffer, afflicted with extensive organ and brain damage, and die young. These are the medical facts, having nothing to do with religious belief, or the power of prayer, or the hopes of parents to raise beautiful children. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend trying to resuscitate babies born at twenty-three weeks. At twenty-four weeks, doctors understand that it’s a crapshoot and they let the parents, together with their attending doctors, decide. At twenty-five weeks, the America Medical Association recommends resuscitation. But within these guidelines, doctors understand that “life” is not assured and that its “sanctity” is merely a hope.[11]

Here we see a very different understanding of “viability” and the notion of “life”. While Dr. Parker starts off with discussing when a preborn fetus can physically survive on his or her own, he shifts to discussing the lack of assurances that this life will endure into the future. Whether this bait and switch was intentional or not is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that it is a change, and a meaningful one at that, because Dr. Parker is no longer discussing a medically verifiable point in time, but rather a much more abstract, esoteric principle about the assurance and continuance of life.

I understand the point that Dr. Parker is seeking to make, and he’s not wrong in asserting that life is never assured, particularly for a child born prematurely. However, the harsh reality of human existence is that life is never assured. Arguably, tragedy is always just around the corner. And so, suggesting that the value of human life—whether that life has sanctity and is worth protecting—is contingent on whether that life is assured is untenable and unascertainable. To use a tragic hypothetical: a new mother and her newborn child could leave the hospital and get hit by a car, fatally killing them both. Their lives were not assured beyond that moment in time—which, for the child, was likely a matter of mere hours or days—and yet both of their lives were of infinite value, full of sanctity and worthy of protection.

Recall that the start of human life is about more than abortion. Identifying when human life begins also means identifying when human rights begin. It is both inadvisable and illogical to base something as serious as the commencement of legal protection and human rights on the ever-changing point of viability.

Having dispensed with that unreasonable assertion, we move on to Dr. Parker’s next claim: that the preborn fetus “cannot form anything like thoughts”.

Cogito, ergo sum?

When reading the book, I found that Dr. Parker makes many confident assertions—presumably drawing on his medical background—about what the preborn fetus can and cannot do without offering any sources to support his claims. This assertion that the preborn child “cannot form anything like thoughts” is one such unfounded—and, apparently, untrue—claim. I say it is untrue because experts and researchers have found that the preborn fetus experiences both REM and non-REM sleep, meaning that he or she dreams in utero.[12] It has also been accepted that preborn fetuses can create and retain memories, and fetal memory—combined with infant dreaming—was at one point thought to potentially explain sudden infant death syndrome.[13] In short, while Dr. Parker’s lack of support for his brazen claims makes it impossible for me to consider the medical evidence that he was theoretically drawing on, I find it difficult to comprehend how a preborn fetus could experience REM sleep, create memories, and store those memories, all while being completely unable to “form anything like thoughts”.

Even if Dr. Parker’s assertion was accepted on its face, however, he makes no attempt to explain the difference between a full-term preborn child and a newborn child. In those few hours of labour—and, really, in those few seconds that distinguish a preborn child from a newborn child—what changes anatomically to enable the newborn child to form thoughts? How is Dr. Parker evaluating the ability to “form anything like thoughts”? I am familiar with the more articulate argument that the preborn fetus is not sentient—not conscious of its existence—but that argument too runs into the problem that, to my knowledge, full-term preborn children experience no anatomical change during birth that suddenly enables them to contemplate their own existence. If sentience, consciousness, and the ability to engage in higher thinking are to be determinative of when human life begins, then it is unclear how full-term preborn children and newborn children will be differentiated. (And hopefully it goes without saying that a definition of the commencement of human life that permits the killing of newborn children—infanticide—is not a viable definition. Pun intended.)

The Problem of Pain

Then we reach Dr. Parker’s comment about the preborn fetus not being able to feel pain. Reiterating a point he referenced previously, Dr. Parker writes:

Truth: Until twenty-nine weeks, a fetus can’t feel anything like pain. This is the established opinion of a 2005 clinical review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees. Both consider the inability of a fetus to feel pain before the third trimester an established fact. And yet, despite the empirical evidence given by science, and not contradicted, the antis continue to disseminate their own version of “truth”—which is to say, lies—and to pass laws that support an entirely false idea about what fetuses in utero can “feel.”[14]

Now, the issue of a preborn child’s ability (or lack thereof) to feel pain is something that pro-life advocates discuss quite often, so I understand why Dr. Parker mentions it in his critique of the “antis” position. However, in my 13 years of experience in the pro-life movement, no pro-life individual has ever asserted in my presence that the preborn fetus is a human being because he or she feels pain. Rather, the importance of the unborn child feeling pain is exclusively about the humaneness—or lack thereof—of the abortion procedure.

It is also ludicrous to suggest that the ability to feel pain is a prerequisite to being recognized as human. There are currently human beings living today who are incapable of feeling pain.[15] It would be foolish to suggest that these individuals are not, in fact, human beings and therefore do not deserve the benefits that come with recognition as a human being (e.g., human rights, inherent dignity, intrinsic value, etc.). While we may think of the ability to feel pain as inherent to human beings, it is clearly not an experience shared by all human beings. The ability to feel pain is also by no means exclusive to our species. In short: the ability to feel pain cannot be a prerequisite for being considered a human being. Therefore, even if the unborn child cannot feel pain—and, to be clear, there are experts who suggest in no uncertain terms that the unborn child can feel pain, perhaps as early as 12 weeks[16]—a preborn fetus can still be (and, in fact, is) a human being.

Ancestral Life, Premature Death, and Other Abstract Arguments

Perhaps the culmination of Dr. Parker’s argument about the humanity—or, from his perspective, the lack thereof—of the unborn fetus can be found in his detailed description of an encounter he had with some University of Alabama students who opposed abortion. Dr. Parker writes:

I can understand why the antis like to insist that “life begins at conception.” It’s a simple way to comprehend human reproduction, and because of its simplicity, it offers moral clarity. What I tried to impress upon those students that day is that the scientific truth about life is complicated—but complication doesn’t conflict with a deeply moral, or even religious, orientation. It’s just that a nuanced moral stance requires wrestling with science and God in a way that might be difficult. It might take some time.

An egg, unfertilized, is alive. And sperm are alive. The human beings who generated those cells, which are called gametes, are also alive. These humans move and think; their cells consume and create energy. Men and women who have engaged in sexual intercourse are healthy, or not; they have good nutrition, or not. They carry with them the DNA of generations of ancestors who were also once alive. Within that DNA are maps or codes for possible future outcomes: brilliance, depression, obesity, schizophrenia, heart disease—all these living secrets are contained in each human cell, whether fertilized or not. So the idea that life begins at conception is already false: life begins long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.[17]

Here we see Dr. Parker again return to this esoteric, abstract conception of “life”. While this is a fascinating line of conversation, ideal for philosophical circles and perhaps even for everyday life, Dr. Parker is once again using a bait and switch tactic. Having said that “the scientific truth about life is complicated”, he then switches to a distinctly non-scientific definition of life, waxing lyrical about “life begin[ning] long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.” This is all well and good and intriguing, but it does little to address the ethics or morality of abortion. More importantly, Dr. Parker slyly skips over crucial scientific facts, such as the fact that egg and sperm cells, while alive, have the DNA of the woman and man, respectively, whereas the newly formed gamete has his or her own DNA, making the newly conceived unborn child genetically distinct from the egg and sperm cells that Dr. Parker tries to frame as essentially scientific equals.[18] If anything, despite its momentarily single-celled nature, the gamete is much closer to the “human beings who generated” the egg and sperm cells than it is to the egg and sperm cells themselves.

Dr. Parker then goes on to list a number of scenarios and challenge whether the unborn fetus is still “life” in this context. He mentions that a “large number” of “fertilized eggs” never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall, and he mentions that ectopic pregnancies occur. He asks: “Do all these conceptions qualify as ‘life’ as the antis define it? A ‘person’ with rights equal to a woman’s rights?”[19] He similarly points to miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive, asking: “Is an embryo that fails to thrive ‘life’? On the same level as a healthy newborn? Or on the same level as the woman carrying it?”[20]

While Dr. Parker seems to be using these questions to try to expose an alleged absurdity in the “life begins at conception” position, his proverbial “aha!” moment falls flat with one word: Yes. Yes, the “large number” of “fertilized eggs” that never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall do, in fact, quality as “life”. Yes, miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive are life “[o]n the same level as a health newborn” and “on the same level as the woman carrying it”. While these embryos clearly did not have the opportunity to fully develop and experience the fullness of life, neither did children who die in infancy, teenagers who die before adulthood, or adults who die of anything other than old age.

Each of these individuals—the teenager who dies in a tragic car crash, the infant who dies of sudden infant death syndrome, and the preborn child who dies of a heart wrenching miscarriage—will have lived a life that was prematurely cut short. However, while this brevity of these lives is tragic, it does not change that fact that these were, in fact, human beings. To put it succinctly: The length of one’s life does not alter the fact of one’s existence as a human being. And so, while miscarried embryos and embryos that never implant may die very early in their lives, they do still constitute human beings, as defined by science.[21]

Returning momentarily to his anecdote about the students from the University of Alabama, Dr. Parker writes:

In my conversation with the young anti-abortion activists at the University of Alabama that day, I presented fatal fetal anomalies as clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks. They countered that sometimes miracles happen that allow these fetuses to survive. Yes, I answered, maybe. But most of the time they don’t. And the students were forced to conceded that, sometimes maybe, abortion does not equal murder. And then I brought my argument home: If you can agree that certain medical conditions might justify abortion, then how can you exclude social, or personal, or financial conditions? If abortion is permissible in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly, then why not in the case of a homicidal, battering partner? Or a dire lack of resources? Or a drug dependency? How can the state adjudicate the circumstances of a woman’s life at all?[22]

Unfortunately, the fact that Dr. Parker managed to outwit a handful of university students by no means demonstrates the strength or veracity of the argument that he “brought home”. Now. Dr. Parker would likely be delighted to know that I agree with his assertion that, if abortion is justified in cases of fetal abnormality, we cannot then wrinkle our noses at abortion in cases of domestic violence, poverty, substance abuse, or other life circumstances that women often face. If the unborn child is not a human being, then there is no need to justify abortion—abortion would not end a human life, and abortion would therefore be no different than a woman having her tonsils or her appendix removed. It would be entirely her choice, a decision to be left up to her and her doctor (and, presumably, the loved ones in her life who would offer helpful feedback and tangible support). However, the opposite is also true: namely, that, if the preborn child is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate, because abortion would end a valuable human life deserving of equal protection as the life of the woman.

However, up to this point, Dr. Parker has still not established that the unborn child is not a human being. Therefore, regardless of what these university students may have been duped into agreeing to, Dr. Parker’s argument is still not made out. Fatal fetal anomalies in a preborn child are by no means “clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks”, just as disabilities in a born human child in no way justify ending his or her life. Similarly, domestic violence, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse by no means justify abortion, just as these admittedly heartbreaking life circumstances in no way justify ending the life of a newborn infant, two-year-old toddler, rebellious teenager, or any other human being, for that matter.

The presence of personal tragedy does not negate the existence of the other’s humanity.

The “Illusion” of the Infant

I will touch on one final comment that Dr. Parker makes in regards to the humanity of the unborn child. In discussing his personal frustration around what he frames as the sentimentality that came with the advent of sonograms, Dr. Parker states:

That the fetus has human features—fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles—only enhances the illusion that this is already a baby, their baby. But to refer to the fetus in utero as a baby is inaccurate. It reflects a hope, not a reality. In reference to a fetus, “baby” is a cultural term, not a scientific one.[23]

This passage is perhaps most revealing of all. In a strangely cautionary and distinctly unscientific tone, Dr. Parker explicitly disregards the obvious, empirical, observable evidence for the humanity of the unborn child. Despite recognizing that the features that the preborn fetus possess are, in fact, “human features”, Dr. Parker deftly avoids the obvious conclusion—namely, that the unborn child possesses human features because he or she is a human being—and chooses instead to zealously assert that these features are simply part of the visual deception that “enhances the illusion that this is already a baby”. This passage feels almost hysterical, as though Dr. Parker is warning readers about a conspiratorial plot—likely, in his mind, attributed to the amorphous “antis”—to control women’s bodies by portraying the fetus as a human with “fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles”. While Dr. Parker’s impassioned and fervent forewarning would be almost endearing if it were true, he seems to miss a glaringly obvious fact that annihilates his assertion that this is an “illusion”: namely, that the “antis” didn’t give “human features” to the preborn fetus, and that, in this context, sociology and anthropomorphism cannot explain away the biological reality that the unborn child’s human features are concrete facts of reality, not projected parental hopes.

And this, my dear readers, is the perfect place to close this blog post. Because, as I have hopefully established through my commentary and as I think Dr. Parker himself makes quite clear in this passage alone, his conviction that life does not begin at conception is “not a scientific one”. It is not based on medical evidence, it is not based on coherent reasoning, and it is not based on a rational weighing of the evidence. Dr. Parker clearly believes that the unborn child is not a human, and I’m sure that he hopes that his work is the morally justified, compassionate contribution to women’s wellbeing that he would like it to be. But hoping that that is the case does not make it true. His claim that the unborn child is not a human being is a cultural one, not a scientific one. In short, to borrow his own words, Dr. Parker’s conviction “reflects a hope, not a reality.”

[1] WJ Parker, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, (New York: 37 Ink/Atria, 2017) [Life’s Work].

[2] Life’s Work.

[3] I recognize that some abortion supporters, acceding to the humanity of the unborn child, shift their line of justification to asserting that the unborn child is not a person. While I will not address this argument in this blog post, I would encourage readers to watch a short video I made many years ago on this question. For a more nuanced discussion of this issue, consider reading this article: John Janez Miklavcic and Paul Flaman, “Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus”, The Linacre Quarterly 84(2) (May 2017), 130, online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/#.

[4] See, for example, Pranshu Verma, “Elon Musk wants ‘free speech’ on Twitter. But for whom?”, The Washington Post (6 May 2022), online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/06/twitter-harassment/.

[5] Life’s Work at 145.

[6] Life’s Work at 145 (emphasis added).

[7] Life’s Work at 12-13.

[8] Life’s Work at 95-96.

[9] Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) at para 160.

[10] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[11] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[12] See American Institute of Physics, “Baby’s First Dreams: Sleep Cycles Of The Fetus”, Science Daily (14 April 2009), online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm, citing Schwab et al., “Nonlinear analysis and modeling of cortical activation and deactivation patterns in the immature fetal electrocorticogram”,Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2009; 19 (1): 015111 DOI: 10.1063/1.3100546.

[13] Christos, G A, “Infant dreaming and fetal memory: a possible explanation of sudden infant death syndrome”, Med Hypothesis, 44(4) (April 1995) 243, DOI: 10.1016/0306-9877(95)90172-8, online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7666822/.

[14] Life’s Work at 157-158.

[15] David Cox, “The curse of the people who never feel pain”, BBC (27 April 2017), online: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain.

[16] Stuart WG Derbyshire and John C Bockmann, “Reconsidering fetal pain” (2020), Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 3-6, online: https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/46/1/3.full.pdf.

[17] Life’s Work at 148-149.

[18] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[19] Life’s Work at 149.

[20] Life’s Work at 149-150.

[21] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[22] Life’s Work at 152-153.

[23] Life’s Work at 155.

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 1: Let There Be Truth

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice” by Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian abortionist in the United States. I was interested in this book for two reasons: first, since Dr. Parker is an abortionist, his proximity to the practice gives him a unique perspective and opportunity for insight when it comes to the abortion debate that I felt was worth being familiar with. Second, I have become increasingly perturbed by the disconcerting phenomenon of Christians taking a pro-abortion stance and using the Bible to defend their position; thus, I wanted to read Dr. Parker’s attempt to justify abortion using a Biblical framework

Now, as someone who has written a book myself, I have some degree of respect for those who are capable of communicating their beliefs, ideas, and passions in a book. In short, I picked up Dr. Parker’s book with this tentative position of default respect. However, I was surprised—impressed, even—at how quickly he lost my respect. It was not the caliber of his writing that lost me, which was consistently clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. Rather, it was his analysis—or, shall I say, his lack thereof.

I will launch a full-scale critique of Dr. Parker’s “argument” another time. For the time being, I will limit my critiques to something that Dr. Parker referred to ad nauseam and claimed to promulgate: truth.

Context: In the prologue to his book, Dr. Parker writes that he is constantly “travelling the country like a twenty-first-century Saint Paul, preaching the truth about reproductive rights…” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 5). I confess that, when I first read those words, I physically cringed, irked by the fact that Dr. Parker seems to think so highly of himself and his work that he felt entitled to compare himself to the man who is credited with writing 13 books of the Bible, the most influential book and the bestselling book of all time. Forgive my less biased perception of Dr. Parker, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison.

There is, however, an equally problematic reference that Dr. Parker makes in that same quote. It is his reference to “the truth about reproductive rights”. For someone who writes “I don’t believe in moral absolutes” and “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”, Dr. Parker sure speaks a lot about “truth” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 195 and 202). Unfortunately, the “truth” he speaks of was shockingly, frequently untrue. (Perhaps this is reflective of his unbelief in “moral absolutes”—perhaps “truth” is as malleable, inconsequential, and subjective for him as morality seems to be.)

The first time I found a statement that is objectively, verifiably untrue in Dr. Parker’s book, I was immediately incensed and deeply disturbed. In the middle of the chapter of his book ironically called “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the following assertion:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two-week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 150) [emphasis added].

(As an aside, note that Dr. Parker is making the peculiar and weak claim that the supposed inevitability of a premature child’s death means that he or she is not a “person.” At the risk of spoiling a future blog post that I will write on this statement and Dr. Parker’s similarly cringe-worthy “analysis”, let me state unequivocally right now that, if the inevitability of death is grounds for denying the preborn child personhood, then no living human is a person, since we will all eventually die. Dr. Parker is arguing in this section that life does not begin at conception and, by extent, that the human fetus is neither alive nor valuable. He is arguing this on the grounds that the child’s viability and survival are still in question. Let me simply ask this question: How can someone die if they are not alive? Rest assured, I shall return to this tragic—dare I say, non-viable—line of reasoning in a future blog post.)

At first glance, his comments seem persuasive. Dr. Parker is a doctor, after all. In fact, he is an ob-gyn. Surely he, of all people, can be trusted. Surely he, of all people, will know the truth on matters of healthcare.

But, for Dr. Parker, the truth seems to be irrelevant. This may seem unnecessarily harsh; however, as someone who cares deeply and personally for actual truth, I think the severity of my critique is justified because of how verifiably untrue Dr. Parker’s claims are.

As it so happens, I have looked into viability before, and so I knew with certainty that Dr. Parker’s claim that no child born at twenty-two weeks can ever be viable is demonstrably untrue. Premature children born before twenty-two weeks have survived with medical assistance. For many years, the youngest recorded preemie was James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born in 1988. He was born at a mere 21 weeks and 5 days, setting a record as the world’s most premature baby. However, in 2017, USA Today reported that a new record was set by a baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and 4 days. And then there is Amilia Taylor, born in 2006 in the United States at just 21 weeks and 6 days.

Each of these individuals—born before twenty-two weeks gestation—is living proof that Dr. Parker’s seemingly reliable statements and bold declarations of “cannot”, “will not”, and “not ever” are little more than reckless overstatements that he made to support his pro-abortion position about “viability”. With a simple Google search that took me less than two minutes, I was able to find three cases that contradict Dr. Parker’s assertions and demonstrate that premature children born before twenty-two weeks can, in fact, survive outside of the womb with medical support. And yet, because Dr. Parker is a doctor, his falsehoods carry an air of reliability and professionalism, and have been dispersed en masse to the public. I am grieved by the knowledge that there are likely now hundreds and thousands of individuals around the world who have innocently placed their trust in Dr. Parker, expecting to receive the truth, and, through no fault of their own, have accepted his flagrant falsehoods as scientific facts.

This was not the only factual inaccuracy in Dr. Parker’s book. Contradictions abound. Take, for instance, Dr. Parker’s discussion of pro-life legislative measures that have recently been enacted in the United States. On page 146, Dr. Parker writes:

Bills proposing that fetuses are people have come before legislatures in at least twenty-eight states. None have passed [emphasis added].

A mere eight pages later, Dr. Parker directly contradicts himself in his discussion on fetal personhood and related legislation, where he states:

In 2016, “personhood” bills were introduced in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, South Caroline, and Virginia. The only state in which such a bill has passed has been Kansas, which in 2013 affirmed the Pro-Life Protection Act, declaring that “life beings at conception.” [emphasis added].

Note that, in a few short pages, we have gone from every single bill “proposing that fetuses are people” failing to “such a bill” passing in Kansas. Once again, Dr. Parker demonstrates that his view of truth is like his view of morality: lacking absolutes and free to toss around, manipulate, and twist to suit one’s personal or rhetorical preferences.

There is one final factual inconsistency that I will expose before I leave this preliminary element of my critique of Dr. Parker’s demonstrably defunct “argument”. On page 117, Dr. Parker repeats the same, tired rhetoric that “[t]he Bible does not contain the word ‘abortion’ anywhere in it” in a pitiful attempt to justify abortion through a Biblical worldview. And yet, on page 207, he writes:

In my view, the only Christianity that mandates an anti-abortion view is an emotion-based faith—a rigid reading of Scripture that invites no questioning or interpretive consideration [emphasis added].

Now, I will save my comments about Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” faith for a later blog post. For now, I would simply like to point out the completely contradictory nature of asserting that the Bible is (a) completely void of any commentary on abortion whatsoever on the one hand, and then (b) asserting that only a literal, “rigid reading” of the Bible could result in a Christian coming to a pro-life worldview on the other hand.

After reading his book, my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s only contributions to the abortion debate are slightly more articulate versions of the same illogical, contradictory, factually-flawed mantras and slogans that already contaminate what could otherwise be rational, scientific, intellectually-honest conversations on the subject of abortion. If anything, his willingness to wield his professional credibility in defence of this unprofessional nonsense and throw his weight as a doctor around in order to convince people of the credibility of the blatant falsehoods he has peddled is the only additional damage that Dr. Parker has done—and, believe me, it is damage he has done to his own side, not to the pro-life community.

Dr. Parker may care a great deal about the practice of abortion. But of objective, verifiable, absolute truth Dr. Parker seems to care very little.

With that, I shall move forward in my critique; my next post will examine a premise central to his rhetoric: the merger of his dubious Christianity and his intellectually vacant “moral argument for choice.”

Why “Choice” is an Unhelpful Term in the Abortion Debate

by 1 Comment

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. My body, my choice.

Somehow, the abortion debate has been characterized by this one word: choice.

I first started thinking of the term “choice” and its utility (or lack thereof) in the abortion debate when I started working on my spoken word: Pro-Woman, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life. I had a few different goals in making that video. As I said in the video, one of my goals was “to challenge the idea that choice is what abortion is all about.” I nuanced the word choice and discussed the reality of coerced abortion, which is a pervasive problem that too few pro-abortion individuals acknowledge.

However, I had another goal: I wanted to commandeer the term “choice”. Because, if we are honest, saying that someone is “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is utterly unhelpful and entirely unenlightening. Here’s why:

If you think about it, when it comes to classifying choices, everyone has three categories of choices: “good” choices, “bad” choices, and “neutral” choice. For example, here would be an example of some of the choices I have listed in each of these three categories:

Good Choices: having access to education, caring for one’s children, being politically engaged, etc.

Bad Choices: sexual assault, murder, speeding, theft, littering, smoking, etc.

Neutral Choices: favourite ice cream flavour, favourite animal, favourite colour, etc.

Note: I put those descriptive words in quotations because I am of the opinion that, regardless of how someone personally classifies a choice, there is an absolute truth about the classification of that choice. For example, many rapists would classify the choice to sexually assault someone as “good” or “neutral”, but that choice is objectively and absolutely wrong, regardless of their personal classification. This also works in the reverse. For example, I classified smoking as a “bad” choice because of the health side effects associated with cigarettes. However, I do not think that smoking is, from a moral perspective, an absolutely wrong choice.

Let’s return back to our lists. We all have these three lists. Yes, there are some objective moral absolutes that, in my opinion, override the perceived correctness of our subjective categorization. Regardless, we each have these three lists that are informed by many factors, including our political ideology, our religious identity (or lack thereof), our family background, our cultural context, and our personal preferences.

Now, I mentioned that I oppose sexual assault. Technically, that makes me “anti-choice”. And you know what? I absolutely am anti-choice when it comes to sexual assault! I do not think sexual assault is ever a legitimate choice that an individual is entitled to make. And, if he or she chooses to make that choice, I am more than happy to be “anti-choice” and remove his or her freedom via incarceration. So you better believe I’m “anti-choice” in that sense. And I certainly hope that most people would agree with me and be “anti-choice” in relation to rape and sexual assault.

However, I also mentioned that I support people having the choice to access education. So I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I want people to have equal opportunities when it comes to accessing education, should they wish to do so. And I think most people are “pro-choice” in that regard, since most individuals support equal access to education for all.

So then, we come to a position where most of us are “pro-choice” on some issues and “anti-choice” on others. Do you now see the futility of these labels?

The issue is that labels like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” do not have intrinsic values embedded in them. They are not value-laden statements. The value of the label is directly linked with the underlying subject matter, not the label itself. That is why being “pro-choice” is good for education (ie. because education is good), but bad for sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad). The same goes for the “anti-choice” label: being “anti-choice” is good when discussing sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad), but bad for choosing one’s favourite ice cream flavour (ie. because one’s favourite ice cream flavour is neutral and functions exclusively as a personal preference).

Determining whether being “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” on any given subject matter is easy when everyone agrees on the moral value of the underlying issue (eg. everyone agrees that sexual assault is bad – and I say “everyone” because even a rapist would demand justice if he/she was sexually assaulted). Things become much trickier when there is disagreement. And that is precisely what we see in the abortion debate.

In the Great Abortion Debate, you have two camps: those who support abortion (ie. “pro-choice”/pro-abortion) and those who oppose abortion (ie. “anti-choice”/anti-abortion/pro-life). Those who support abortion are “pro-choice”, because they support abortion as a legitimate solution to an unwanted or crisis pregnancy. However, that is not a negative thing in their minds. There is nothing wrong to them about being “pro” a choice that, in their minds, is categorized as helping women. Similarly, those who oppose abortion can be called “anti-choice”, because they are “anti” a choice that, by their evaluation, results in the violent destruction of an innocent life. However, that is not a negative thing in their – our – minds. There is nothing wrong to them – to us – about being “anti” a choice that ends another human life.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this dualistic method of characterizing and framing the issue of abortion. Abortion is either right (“good” or “neutral”) or wrong (“bad”). Part of the problem really comes down to what this “choice” is that we talk about so flippantly. If abortion ends the life of a separate living human entity, then it ends a human life – that is the “choice” being made. If abortion does not end the life of a separate living human entity, then it is just another medical decision women sometimes need to make – that is the “choice” being made.

So which is it? Is abortion right? Is abortion wrong? It is helpful to have these conversations. In fact, it is necessary to have these conversations. But we cannot have these conversations effectively when we devolve into the lazy labelling tactic of just accusing someone of being “anti-choice”.

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. These words and labels are empty without context, without information, without the necessary details required to reach an educated conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. So it is unhelpful and unwise to limit the abortion debate to these two overly simplistic labels. Again, whether you consider yourself “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is irrelevant unless we first define the value of the choice we are discussing.

So to all my pro-life friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Do not let people delegitimize you with meaningless mantras like “anti-choice”. You are “anti-choice”. So what? There is nothing wrong with that unless abortion is a good/neutral subject matter. So do not let the conversation end after you have been labelled. Push further. Have that difficult conversation about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. Be courageous. Be respectful. And be bold. (And, while you’re at it, be sure not to label others. It’s not helpful.)

To all my pro-abortion friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Many flaunt the “pro-choice” label as though it is their badge of honour, their symbol of tolerance, their ticket to the ultimate woke life. Do not give in to that temptation. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion. But perhaps there is. Do not skim over that detail. Wrestle with that question. Labels limit discussions. Do not accept that as your standard.

Stay curious, my friends.

Where is freedom of choice when you really need it, part II

by 3 Comments

One of the best parenting tips I was ever given was to save righteous indignation for things that were truly abhorrent. If you go hysterical on your children for every piece of clothing they toss on the floor, what are you going to do when they call from prison at 16 because they got caught driving drunk without a license, I ask you? It doesn’t only make good parenting sense, it also makes good common sense. My day-job puts me at the receiving end of a lot of disgruntlement from all sorts of people. Believe me: when you start questioning someone’s moral fiber because the latest press release contained a typo or because the French translation came after the English version or because your phone call was returned the next day and not the same afternoon, it affects your credibility. Somehow.

What was I saying? Yes, righteous indignation for really bad things. Everything else can be handled in a mature, rational matter.

That’s what I thought when I read this piece and the comments page to this post.

So we live in a country that is so progressive and so in love with a “woman’s right to choose” that we can’t even discuss abortion without being labelled “anti-choice.” Our government recently thought that in order to secure re-election, it had to slam the door shut on Parliamentary debate on abortion and muzzle its cabinet. We are so darn progressive — can’t you hear my suspenders snap (that’s a French expression, se péter les bretelles, look it up) — that we can’t even handle a law on abortion thus making it legal to abort a child throughout all nine months of pregnancy while saving premature infants born as early as 23 weeks. And don’t get me started on not getting a pedicure to save a child I could still legally abort, no questions asked. But let’s not talk about all that. We’re going to get our collective nose out of joint over mothers feeding their children because *gasp* they do it with their breasts!

That’s how pro-woman we are. We institutionalize equality according to a male standard of sexual behaviour. That is, to be equal, we have to be able to have sex without having the kids. To achieve this great ideal, women have to stuff themselves with synthetic hormones, contraceptive devices and, failing that, undergo invasive surgery in the form of abortion. Then, having convinced women that they are really like guys, we will bombard them at a very young age with suggestions of proper sexual behaviour: “51 tricks that will make him jump for joy,” “Release your inner vixen” and “How Hally got her bikini body back only 3 months post-partum.” (3 months post-partum I’m still thinking up an action plan for getting out of my PJs).  And that’s saying nothing about fashion images that show just about every inch of skin except the nipple. Which is really too bad for the children who depend on the poor nipple for their physical or emotional sustenance. Well, grow up kids! Society needs that nipple for titillation and had you stuck with the bottle, there would be no problem. Forget those pesky health advocates who suggest that the nipple is put to better use feeding the kids than entertaining the adults.

All it underscores is the vast hypocrisy of our society’s liberal, pro-choice rethoric. We are not really pro-choice, we are pro-Me. Me support your choice to whatever as long as it doesn’t affect Me. That’s why Me supports abortion as long as we don’t talk about it publicly. And Me support your choice to breastfeed as long as Me doesn’t have to look at a working boob (as opposed to the decorative variety which is usually bouncier and better-looking).

My point is not to start a flame war on breastfeeding in public but to question the hegemony — and hypocrisy — of choice and equality. The biological purpose of breasts is to feed children just as the biological purpose of sex is to conceive them. How can we pretend to have reached equality when we deny the biological dimension of womanhood? As for making breastfeeding into a moral issue, as I said, righteous indignation for things that are righteously abhorrent…

_________________________

Brigitte disagrees: Well, in part anyway. Specifically, about whether it should be a big deal to breastfeed in public. There are ways of doing it that aren’t as in-your-face as others, but some people insist on thrusting their private parts in your face regardless, and I find that unbecoming. In this as in many other things, it’s all in how it’s done: I understand that small breastfed babies do not always send their moms advance notice of when they’ll be hungry. And that when they are hungry they’re hungry right now!!! But that shouldn’t be an excuse to let it all hang out. Yes, it’s a small thing. But small things say a lot more about a person than we sometimes think.

________________________

Véronique says: Don’t get me wrong: there is still an argument to be made about whether it should be a big deal to breastfeed in public and how. I once had a 18-month-old nursling who would start howling as soon as we stepped into a restaurant because he knew I would nurse him right away to shut him up. I didn’t like feeling like a self-serve and I like to teach my children some self-control, yes, starting at 18 months. So I stopped and got nasty looks of a different kind for a while until the baby got the message (nobody likes a screaming toddler in a restaurant more than a nursing one, believe me). I once saw a nursing mother at a public pool with her one-piece pulled down to nurse and I thought that a towel wouldn’t have been out of place.

That being said, it’s the whole “moral argument” that gets me going. Appropriate or not, sure. Let’s talk. Moral or not… Let’s not forget that we live in a country where you can abort human babies in the name of equality. If that’s our standard of morality, then the least we can do is to leave the poor nursing mothers alone.

“Did you feel this?”

by Leave a Comment

A reader directed me to this New York Times article, which sent me on a research frenzy. As a lawyer/ethicist, I am out of my league commenting on the state of fetal neuro-science. But I have some observations.

Given what goes on during an abortion procedure, I am quite desperate to believe the American Medical Association when it tells me that fetuses – pardon my Latin – are unable to process a painful stimulus until the third trimester of pregnancy. I find it difficult to do so because:

The topic of fetal pain has received the same polarizing treatment as all other matters of abortion, meaning that whether or not fetuses feel pain now depends on where you stand on the pro-life to pro-abortion continuum. Which is scientifically and academically troubling since:

Brain structures are not political. Either fetuses feel pain and abortion hurts them or fetuses don’t feel pain and abortion doesn’t hurt them. The question is: does it matter? Is the legitimacy of abortion affected by whether or not fetuses feel it? Is abortion wrong because it hurts or is it wrong because it kills? Would those who don’t object to ending fetal life object to causing fetal pain? I wonder.

Meta