Is it really so hypothetical?

The following comment on facebook made by a pro-choicer was meant to challenge pro-lifers on their belief that the abortion really is murder:

What if there was a building in your town where they chucked two year olds into a furnace. Would you be able to go about your day in a normal fashion if you knew that was taking place? Would you shake your head and say "We need to start some grassroots organization to lobby congress to put an end to that". Would you go a period of a few days where the fact that kids were being tossed into a furnace wasn't the most pressing thought in your head? Would you solemnly condemn someone who violently attacked that establishment or the people who work there in order to stop the constant, unapologetic murder of babies that took place there every day?

My response: is it really so hypothetical? People have to live with these kinds of contradictions every day, actually. It's not like people three hundred years ago people had no idea how bad the slave trade was. It's not like Americans in the nineteenth century didn't know how awful the Trail of Tears was. It's not like Germans under the Nazi regime really thought it was okay to lock up millions of Jews in concentration camps. These things really happened, not because people were so different from you or me. They happened because normal people like you and me aren't so wonderful as we think we are. It's remarkably easy to justify evil. You'll even hear words like "freedom" used to justify these atrocities: Hitler thought Germans should "liberate" themselves from the Jews, as I'm sure American Southerners wanted to free themselves from the presence of the Cherokee Nation.

 

The simple answer to the commenter's question is, sadly, yes. Yes, I can go about my day in a "normal" way, knowing that thousands and thousands of my fellow human beings are being killed at the hands of people who probably feel justified. Yes, I do think that for now the political process and grassroots movements are probably the best means I know of for doing anything about this problem in our society. Yes, I will condemn acts of terrorism done in the name of the pro-life movement, partly because I think it's wrong to fight fire with fire (I'm not even sure the Civil War was justified for all the blood that it spilled), and partly because I think it's futile to act in this manner. If a pro-choicer really wants to understand how pro-lifers don't go insane under the mental strain of knowing what injustice is committed in the name of "freedom," well, maybe the answer is that it kind of does drive us insane. Maybe if you think about it long enough, you'll start to understand why the rhetoric gets so heated.

It's worth saying that the issue of abortion really does cross my mind every single day. Let me add that other issues also tend to drive me crazy, and I suppose the list can get awfully depressing: America's foolish and arrogant interventionist policy in foreign affairs, the death toll of both American soldiers and innocent civilians in the Middle East, the ever-increasing powers of the executive branch of government, the ability of the executive branch to now assassinate a U.S. citizen without trial, the ability of rich elites to come under the protection of the government at the expense of everyone else, the oppressive restrictions on immigrants seeking refuge in a land of bountiful resources--I could go on and on. And these are just the things that our nation is responsible for. Good Lord, if I continually reflected on the horrors committed by the many corrupt governments and criminal enterprises around the world, I don't know how I could live a single day of my life.

So why don't I go absolutely crazy and devote every minute of my life to ending abortion? Sometimes I'm not really sure, except that it's harder than you might think to stand up for justice. We like to tell ourselves we "would" stand up for justice if things "got that bad," all the while not recognizing that things are that bad. Considering how long it took the human race to get rid of slavery, and knowing that even now it still takes place (if only illegally), what makes you think we are so powerful to change things? I don't relinquish all hope, I just want to put these questions about justice in context.

When it comes to activism, I think despair is more powerful than fear. Sure, I guess you could say I would fear for my life if I truly began to express my outrage at the state of affairs in this country. But I think more so, I am held back from action simply by the despair I feel at seeing how few people really agree with me that something ought to change. Thus, I continue to work at my career like a good citizen, hoping that it will make the world a slightly better place, and knowing that if I can just block out the world's evils I really will enjoy it. I continue to enjoy my friends and family, and I continue to thank God that mankind isn't as bad as it could possibly be. We've made it this far, after all.

To sum up: don't kid yourself with such "hypothetical situations." In many ways, the world really is as bad as the worst hypothetical you can come up with. It's only because your brain can only handle so much stress at once that you choose to mostly ignore it. And I'm right there with you.

Walk for Life 2012

So I haven't blogged in a couple of weeks. Of course, you can always check on my daily musings on my facebook page (which is always a great forum for sound intellectual conversation). Between thesis writing and making major life decisions (turns out I'll be living in Paris next year) I guess I haven't had much time for other things. Thus, I haven't had time to get out there and ask for sponsors for the Walk for Life, which is coming up soon. You can read about how important this event is to me here. And you can see pictures from the event in 2010 here.

Check out the ChipIn page here. Or, since you're already reading my blog, why don't you just donate on this cool ChipIn gadget!




I'll have more reflections on life, the universe, and everything pretty soon, I guess. Right now I'm pretty tired, and my thoughts are pretty scattered. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out my own life, so I don't know if I'm in a very good place to figure out the world around me.

But hey, there's always time for trying to help people.

Myths of Progress

Human reason can neither predict nor deliberately shape its own future. Its advances consist in finding out where it has been wrong.  -- F. A. Hayek

It's common among some of my intellectual peers to speak of the "myth of progress," a term used disparagingly of the idea of progress made popular in Western consciousness ever since the Enlightenment era. The idea that "civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction" is a very easy target for intellectual criticism, because it both impacts our everyday thought and speech and is obviously false. Yet I find myself a little dissatisfied by the apparent alternatives. Indeed, in my experience there seem to be three different myths of progress, all working together, often paradoxically. Here they are:

1. The myth of inevitable progress: the idea that whatever is newer is better. You see this a lot when it comes to technology, of course (it's actually a little sad to know how many people are willing to line up for the latest toy being released by Apple or Microsoft). But you also see it all the time when it comes to morality. On multiple occasions, for instance, I have pointed out to a friend that the 19th century feminists were pro-life. Typical response: "They lived a long time ago."
2. The myth of progress on demand: the idea that if we want more progress, we just have to fight for it. Think of Occupy Wall Street on the left, or the "cultural warriors" on the right. Intentionally militant language is used to signify that progress is both necessary and achievable through unrelenting determination.
3. The myth of nihilism: there is no such thing as progress, and nothing we do really changes anything in the long run. We're no better nor worse than our ancestors, we can judge no one and no one can judge us. This is, in some ways, an immature reaction to the first two, but it is also deeper than that. Reflecting on our astonishing lack of knowledge can easily lead an intellectual down the pass to despair. Perhaps we really know nothing, after all, and everything we think we know is just a narrative we tell ourselves to keep going. But this is itself a narrative we tell ourselves, and I suspect it is because we have grown weary of traveling down the arduous path of discovery.

All of these are myths, stories we tell ourselves to simplify the world. Or, perhaps, they are stories which really do capture a genuine truth about ourselves. Myths cannot be so easily dismissed as falsehoods. For a myth to become so deeply rooted in society, it must have some ring of truth to it, after all.

Nevertheless, all of these claims are demonstrably false once they are stated clearly. The myth of inevitable progress cannot stand up to the fact of two world wars, in addition to many other credible examples of moral decline. The myth of progress on demand cannot stand up to the fact that, for example, communist revolutions have largely resulted in far worse totalitarianism than anything devised by the reigning aristocracy. The myth of nihilism is equally flawed: the world really has, in a way which is simply unprecedented in history, repudiated institutions such as slavery which were finally seen for the evils that they are. And technological progress, for all of the difficulties it brings with it, really has made people healthier and more productive than ever before.

The reason all of this is important is that we as modern people thrive on the idea of progress. We place our hopes in it; we demand it; and, precisely because we love it so much, we sometimes despair of ever attaining it. It is important that intellectuals lay a proper foundation for thinking rightly about progress, a foundation that accords with both high ideals and common sense.

I began with a quote from a chapter of The Constitution of Liberty entitled, "The Common Sense of Progress." I think this essay is a fantastic read, and it's worth reading all the way through, but I think one can also distill from it a few basic principles that are worth repeating. Here they are:

1. Progress is necessary. No, it isn't inevitable, and no, it doesn't come by simply demanding more of it, but it is what we want, and that's both natural and healthy. As Adam Smith pointed out years ago, a static society is awful for those who are least fortunate, and a regressive society even worse. The only way we can meet the needs of the many is to continue to make progress.
2. Progress is unpredictable. Just because I think I know how to solve a problem doesn't mean I will. A much bigger point is that many problems cannot even be named, much less solved, until I solve other ones. I won't even know what further progress means until I overcome today's problems.
3. Progress does not always satisfy. Sometimes, in solving the problems of the day, I may just wind up wishing I hadn't. But if we always knew this ahead of time, there wouldn't be any need for progress in the first place; we'd already know everything we need to.
4. Progress is nonlinear. Just because we improve in one way doesn't mean we improve in every way. Sometimes in order to make progress in one area, we end up stagnating or even regressing in another. It is impossible to know ahead of time how this balance will play out in the long run.
5. Progress begins locally. No innovation can immediately affect everyone, but it must undergo a refinement process which always starts with the people with enough expertise to understand the innovation. I think this even applies to moral progress: it is only through determined visionaries, who see the problems of society in a specialized way, that movements can arise to reform society.
6. Progress is good. Even though we can't say this without qualification, it is nevertheless true that progress is good. If for no other reason than the mere satisfaction of learning something new, progress is a good thing that will always continue to attract the imagination of human beings.

Hopefully these principles are a reasonable enough baseline for thinking about progress in the modern world, so that we as intellectuals can actually say things with both confidence and realistic expectations. Nothing we do will ever result in quite the thing we wanted or expected, but that is no reason not to do it. Nothing we believe is ever invulnerable to criticism or change, but that is no reason to believe nothing. The more realistic we are in our desire for change, the more hopeful we can be that change is possible. We will never know in our lifetimes whether it was all worth it, but we can be sure that such was true also of our heroes of the past.

As for me, I would like to believe that there really is some meaning behind all of our history, civilization, and progress. If we in the modern world have trouble believing in God, then I would rather that we at least believe in something that extends beyond ourselves. And since we are so prone to believe in progress, it would help if we at least believed something true about it.

Drug legalization: the moral argument

As I've just read in the news that Pat Robertson, of all people, has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana, I thought I would take a stab at the issue generally. There are many angles from which you could approach this issue: social, political, moral, medical, and even fiscal concerns come into the picture. While I think all of these are important, I want to stick with the moral/political side of things, because this is where our principles are really put to the test.

So here's the claim: drugs should be legalized, with certain regulations as necessary to prevent harm to those who are particularly vulnerable (such as children). Some positive arguments, as Robertson himself elucidates, include the following. First, it would reduce our prison population, saving us lots of money which we currently spend needlessly. Second, it would prevent violence in the form of "drug wars" between black market rivals or between drug dealers and police. Third, it would eliminate the rather obvious disparity in the legal system between wealthy drug users who find it easy to get away with and those in the lower class who are easy targets for police. Beyond these, legalization would probably also have a good effect on our economy, by creating more legitimate jobs, as unsavory as it might sound to most people.

Now let's deal with three objections. First, there's the paternalistic objection: shouldn't we save people from themselves? After all, drug addiction is pretty bad, and everyone hooked on drugs could use a little incentive to get off drugs. Do we really want to leave people alone while they ruin their lives, and possibly impose costs on the rest of us due to their poor health and poor decisions?

The answer to this is pretty clear: we don't need to make something illegal to help people stop doing it. On the contrary, it would probably be easier to help people quit their addictions if drug use were legal, since it would be easy for people to be out in the open about their use. If you want to be paternalistic, then let's have a compromise: instead of spending government funding on guns and prisons, let's spend it on rehab centers. Alcoholism is a real problem for many people, yet we don't arrest people for drinking. (We tried that before, it didn't turn out so well.) Or take smoking as an example: an entire industry has built up around helping people to quit, from nicotine patches to chewing gum.

A second objection has to do with law and order: aren't drug users more likely to be involved in other crimes? Well, let's weigh the moral merit of such an objection. Is it right to punish people for doing something they are going to do? Should I punish someone for using drugs because I think it will lead to violence? Again, take the issue of alcohol use. We punish people for drunk driving, but not for drinking. That's because drunk driving endangers lives, while drinking does not. But doesn't drinking lead to drunk driving? Well, in general, no. There is a pretty clear dividing line between the choice to use drugs in the privacy of your own home or private club, for example, and the choice to drive a two-ton piece of machinery down the road while intoxicated. One should not be punished because of bad associations between two distinct activities.

Thirdly, there is the following objection, related to the first two: won't legalization lead to more drug use, thereby degrading the morals of society? Some will answer this by pointing to studies that show eventual declines in drug use in countries where it has been legalized. However, let us make a more philosophical point in response to this objection. It is obvious that we cannot make illegal all things which are wrong. How can we possibly draw the line between things which should be legal and those which should be illegal?

To solve this puzzle, I propose the following test: is it peaceful? As someone with libertarian leanings, I believe that society must work first to be a peaceful society, and then we can focus on solving particular moral problems. Progress is best made through peace. When people feel coerced into abiding by a particular moral code, they tend to resent whoever assumes this moral authority over them. Within certain institutions such as the family, this can be a necessary and even healthy thing; but between existing communities of people, this is an unhealthy relationship which can only cause long-standing tension.

I have never used any drugs other than alcohol; I've never even smoked. But there really is virtue in tolerance, by which I mean permitting other people to do things you actually do not prefer. I grow increasingly discouraged that tolerance has fallen out of favor in our society; we seem to be forced to choose between endorsing or forbidding. If everything we find disgusting must be illegal, and likewise everything we make legal must be actively accepted as good, then our democracy will surely deteriorate (as it has done) into a tug of war, to which there is no end. I refuse to hold any stance on drug use other than tolerance: I think drug use is wrong, and I think it should be legal.

Simply ask yourself, do you really want men with guns locking someone away merely for possessing a substance which has certain negative effects on the human body when consumed? Does this punishment fit the crime? Perhaps a tax is a more fitting punishment; or, just maybe, the mere use of drugs is benign enough to simply be left alone, as are most activities done in private.

In praise of the Living Wage campaign at UVA

You might be wondering what a guy with libertarian leanings, who has actually defended the abolition of minimum wage laws, is doing praising the "Living Wage" campaign at the University of Virginia. That might be because you, like me, initially assumed upon reading the words "living wage" that the activist organization demanding better pay for UVA employees is another political action team wanting to get legislation passed to achieve their objectives. Or it might be because you, like so many of us in this world, have been fooled by stereotypes, having been taught through a steady diet of mainstream media that libertarians are greedy, selfish jerks who think everyone should have to fend for himself. Whatever the reason you're surprised, if indeed you are, I hope to explain clearly and succinctly why you shouldn't be.

The Living Wage campaign exists for the purpose of demanding better pay for employees of the University of Virginia. Its specific wage demands (which can be read here) are based on the Economic Policy Institute's estimation of what it costs to live in Charlottesville and raise a family of four. It further demands structural changes in the university that will make the improvement of wages an ongoing process. The rationale behind these demands is simple: we, as a university, ought to live up to our stated goal of being a "caring community."

Why I support this. I have joined 2,255 other people in signing a petition that the university meet Living Wage standards. As a Christian, I believe all human beings have a responsibility to care for the poor among us, and we as Christians are particularly responsible for advocating for those less fortunate. I also believe it is our duty to take part in shaping the institutions of which we are part. Communities are shaped by powerful institutions, and we have a moral obligation to insist that those institutions adhere to good and just principles. Human beings cannot thrive without communities that look out for the common interest.

As a libertarian, I believe it is vital for individuals to be active on the ground in making the world a better place. Indeed, it is our general complacency about the needs of our own communities that invites greater and more intrusive intervention from the state. From my point of view, the point of libertarianism is not for us all to float around in an atomistic world of self-interested individuals with no ties to any institutions or communities. No, the point is for all of us individuals to be free to create, shape, and reform those institutions with which we are naturally affiliated. If the university of which I am a part does not reflect the morals which I hold dear, then I have a right and even a duty to make this known to the community.

Response to objections. So what about economics? What about the minimum wage? Doesn't that do more harm than good? (I've seen posters on campus suggesting exactly that.)

I think this is based on a misunderstanding of what is being demanded. The Living Wage campaign exists to change the values that govern UVA's policies, not to change laws. It is more than probable that many activists in the campaign would disagree with my political views very sharply. But as far as I can see, despite whatever traditional ties there may be between this kind of activism and leftist politics, the purpose of the campaign is not explicitly political. And anyway, I don't see why we libertarians can't take back some of that moral high ground that the leftists want to take from us.

(I was particularly agitated in my soul when I read this statement on the campaign web site, from an anonymous employee of the university: “The problem is that so many workers get locked into the low wage that stays there… you end up losing ground financially because of inflation and such… and so a lot of people are making less money then they were making years ago.” [Emphasis mine.] And people wonder why we Ron Paul fans keep going on about monetary policy...)

So in response to the economic argument, I would say it is not correct that a university policy of paying its employees well would do more harm than good. UVA must decide, as all firms must, how it will allocate its resources, based on its guiding principles. The Living Wage campaign simply pleads that one of those guiding principles be that we care for the needy in our community. That is a proper moral stance, and if "economics" is ever used as an argument against your morals, you must always side with your morals.

The reason minimum wage laws don't make sense (to me) is that the government can't possibly know all the legitimate exceptions to the rules they make up. What if a young teenager wants to try working on a farm one summer? What if young woman fresh out of college is willing to work a low-paying internship just to gain skills that will and her a fulfilling career? What if a young immigrant is willing to work for next to nothing because it's actually worth quite a bit in his home country? In all of these cases, it's none of the state's business if these individuals choose to take on a particular risk or hardship. Provided individuals are free to choose between competing firms, the government should have no say in their personal decisions.

But again, we have the right and the moral responsibility to help shape the values that guide our own institutions to which we belong. So long as the goal isn't the use of coercion, I have nothing but enthusiasm for a campaign to increase the welfare of the community.

I know of no other reasonable objections to the Living Wage campaign, but if there are any, I'd love to hear them. For now, at least, I'm a supporter, and I look forward to receiving campaign updates. I can only give my apologies to those (particularly of my friends) who have been active in campaigning, including the recent hunger strike, as I am a relative late-comer to this cause.

Just say "no" to government bias

I was infuriated (but perhaps should not have been surprised) to read an article by Joe Carter (in the Acton Institute's blog, of all places!) explicitly defending the idea of harnessing bias in governmental institutions. Summarizing the difference between the conservatism he wants to defend and the libertarianism he wants to critique, he gives the following quote:

Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially between the government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need for bias toward a certain outcome is not only unnecessary, but contrary to liberty. Religious conservatives, in contrast, recognize that such neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory and that bias is an intractable aspect of human nature.

The application of this position came today, in a follow-up article he wrote in agreement with state intervention in aiding start-up companies:

As Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic, says, “It would be naive to think we can cleanse the law of all biases. But what if the law were biased, not toward the oil and gas industry or the cotton farmers, but toward the creative, the self-employed, and the entrepreneurs?”

You can watch Derek Thompson explain himself on the Alyona Show here.

Carter and Thompson both have intentions which are pure enough. After all, it would be a great thing to see more young entrepreneurs contribute to our prosperity instead of watching all of it go to CEO's of big corporations.

But as Milton Friedman said, good intentions are highly overrated.

What I cannot comprehend is why "religious conservatives" have completely forgotten the ideal of impartiality, an ideal which is commonly attributed to God throughout the Bible. It would be one thing if Carter had merely said, "I think government will always have some bias in it." What he is actually saying is that we should direct this bias toward ends we desire. Does this really pass for a defense of liberty? Are we really now to believe that it is the well-meaning free-market activists who really know the ends toward which society should move?

Whichever intellectual forces brought us to the point where we believe in embracing institutional bias in government deserve to be burned in the fires of hell (and please do not construe "intellectual forces" to refer to people; hate the sin, love the sinner, as they say). A free society is unique among all other forms of social order in one crucial sense: in a free society, the ends to which members of the society strive are never determined by human authority. Thus the end to which government ought to strive is strictly one of defense: preserving the social order from those who would seek to impose their will on others. When the government is in the habit of imposing its own will on others, I call that tyranny.

I acknowledge that what Carter and Thompson are suggesting is benign. It is their way of thinking about the issue that poses a serious long-term problem to freedom. They are not the innovators, of course; they are simply imitating the status quo. As long as people who wish to defend freedom keep imitating the status quo, we will never get justice.

So let me say it plainly: anyone who utters the words "bias is inevitable" is defending tyranny. There is nothing inevitable about a government which picks winners and losers, which defends its own interests at the expense of others, which takes from some to give to others, and which compels all members of society to contribute to particular goals. In other words, the status quo is not inevitable. We must examine how we got here, and seek to move in a new direction.

Let's be clear on what I am not saying, before we go accusing "Mr. Libertarian" of being a cold-hearted bastard who believes in a society consisting every man for himself. I am not saying there should be no cooperation between people in order to help those who may want to take risks and start a new business. I am not saying that young entrepreneurs don't need encouragement. I am simply saying that the strong arm of the state doesn't need to be part of this, and more generally coercion doesn't need to be the instrument by which people help each other.

But the goal of having more entrepreneurs and less power in corporations is an admirable goal. One way you could help entrepreneurs is by defending them from the overreaching powers of the government. The Institute for Justice is the only organization I know of that tries to raise public awareness about the problems with over-regulation and actually do something about it.

Freedom is about protecting the individual conscience, and I believe conscience will drive many people to do great things to change society for the better. What we must  never do is succumb to the temptation to force others down a path we believe is just. The ends do not justify the means. The injustice of coercion trumps the justice of any one cause (unless that cause is itself to prevent coercion, which is a case that must be dealt with separately). If we surrender the ideological battle to the "inevitability of bias," then in the long run freedom has no chance.

Notes on a secular argument against abortion

A couple of weeks ago I went to a nice presentation by Kelsey Hazzard for the Virginia Atheists and Agnostics, in which she argued against abortion on a purely secular basis. The great thing about the presentation was the extended Q&A time, during which a lot of members of the group got to express their opinions and concerns. I didn't say anything, I just wanted to listen and get a feel for the state of the argument among committed secularists. After contemplating what I heard, I decided to write some thoughts on the issue.

First, I think abortion law, like all law, should be settled on a secular basis. It is difficult to define what I mean here by "secular," but to keep things simple, I'll say that the law should be decided on the basis of scientific facts and moral arguments premised on basic individual rights as expressed in, say, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I should not have to appeal to any particular religious doctrine to make a case for something to be illegal. This is both a practical and a charitable principle; it lets all sorts of people enjoy freedom of conscience while living at peace with one another.

Second, educated atheists understand perfectly well that human life begins at conception. There is nothing controversial about this. The details of embryonic and fetal development are widely available on the Internet, and do not need to be rehearsed every time this debate is had. The real questions are moral and philosophical. What do we mean by person? Who has rights? And what rights to human beings have?

Some common defenses of abortion I heard were as follows. The unborn do not possess consciousness, therefore they are not persons. In some ways this is perhaps the objection to making abortion illegal. Analogies do not seem to impress the pro-abortion-choice crowd. A person in a coma still has rights, doesn't he? (Maybe not.) A person who is sleeping certainly has rights. (But that's not the same at all!) A newborn infant hardly qualifies as conscious. (Peter Singer says we can kill them, too. But let's not talk about Singer; let's just agree that consciousness begins somewhere in the third trimester, maybe.)

Consciousness is a very slippery concept, emerging gradually rather than at any well-defined moment in time. But conception is a pretty well-defined moment. Again, scientifically this is uncontroversial. If we equate personhood with consciousness, then in terms of personal rights we have no way of drawing boundaries between people. This might be acceptable in many situations, but in matters of life and death, how can we justify moving boundaries?

A most absurd version of this argument: "If my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't have cared." Of course not. You wouldn't have been. If this argument could justify abortion, it could justify any killing at all. If you kill me today, I won't care tomorrow.

Another argument is that the unborn child is not connected to society. No one would miss her. The only person to whom she has a connection is a mother who doesn't want her. I have a couple of objections to this. First, does the argument still have any weight of others connected to the unborn child (e.g. the father or the grandparents) object to her abortion? Second, does the conscience of other members of society have any bearing? (I once saw a picture on facebook that suggested: "Don't want to pay taxes for abortions? Don't make me pay taxes for wars!" I think that's a pretty good compromise.) Third, what about analogies, such as hermits removed from society, or others with very few social contacts?

This argument basically comes down to a perverse form of utilitarianism. You are only justified on the basis of your worth to society. It would be far beyond the scope of this post to get into all the reasons that is a terrible idea. Let us instead turn our minds to a real-world example. How do we feel about sex selective abortion in China, India, and other nations? Is it acceptable to abort girls because they are less wanted in your culture? Right here at home, we read that 90% of children diagnosed with down syndrome in the womb are aborted. Is this acceptable?

Another argument concerns a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Carrying a pregnancy to term is a risky decision; by many estimates it is more risky to a woman's life than getting an abortion. Certainly a woman should be allowed to decide which risks to her life she is going to take, even if it's a relatively minor risk, and even if someone else's life depends on her.

It's important to mention that the pro-life position usually allows for a woman to abort in case of an added threat to her life, due to a pregnancy complication. More controversial is the idea that women who are raped have the right to abort, on the grounds that they should not be forced to care for a child she did not willingly consent to caring for. I will go ahead and say, perhaps controversially, that I more or less accept this argument in the case of rape. (This certainly does not settle the ethical issue in my mind, but perhaps it does settle the legal issue. I am not at all suggesting that children conceived in rape ought to be killed, or that they have no competing rights claim in this case. I am suggesting, however, that a woman's right to autonomy may win out against the competing claim to her protection.)

However, in all other cases, we cannot avoid dealing with the obvious question of responsibility. The argument is so often framed in terms of a woman's rights but never about a man and a woman's responsibilities. Clearly, sex resulting in conception involves a man and a woman. Two people consenting to sex are implicitly consenting to take responsibility for the life they may conceive. I am not suggesting every sex act must be for the purpose of procreation. If a couple doesn't wish to conceive, contraception is an option. However, just because I drive safely doesn't mean I will never have an accident, and I must pay for the consequences of my mistakes. Likewise, a man and a woman who never meant to conceive are not thereby relieved from the responsibility of caring for the child they have conceived.

This is a widely accepted notion once birth occurs. It is only controversial when we are speaking of life before birth. There are, of course, lots of interesting modern questions that could be raised concerning the roles of women and men in families. How much responsibility should parents bear for the well-being of their child? How should women and men share this responsibility? What kind of family structure would grant women and men true equality? What societal factors can help or hinder this? As interesting as all of these concerns are, they have nothing to do with abortion. Whatever responsibilities men and women should bear in relation to their children, they have already begun to bear them as soon as they conceive, because that is when a new life begins.

Given the importance of the right to life, apart from which no other right has any worth, it would appear that any couple who consents to having sex and thereby conceives should be expected to refrain from killing the new human being they have brought into the world. Treating abortion as a back-up contraception is simply a denial plain fact, which is that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.

One more remark on this: I realize that it can be uncomfortable for young pro-life activists to talk about responsibility in parenting. I, for one, am not married and have no children. However, I simply don't think we can avoid the topic in reference to the political theory. We cannot talk about legal rights without also talking about responsibilities. The connection between sex and life is obvious, and we have to find ways to address the issue directly. We cannot shy away from talking about sex in a responsible manner--which does not mean insisting on abstinence only education, demanding laws against sex outside of marriage, or any other such absurd and invasive laws. I firmly believe that it is possible to live in a society which is neither prudish nor childish about sex. There are certainly ways to prevent conception if we wish, but abortion is not contraception. As soon as we accept the moral consequences of a scientific fact, we can get the abortion question right.

Finally, I want to briefly mention an issue that I have been meaning to address at length, but will not have room to address fully here. Not surprisingly, one of the atheist/agnostic students was sharp enough to bring it up. Since life begins at conception (an this is scientific fact) we have to deal with this question raised by embryology: what do we do about the enormous number of spontaneous abortions that happen early in most pregnancies? Studies estimate that as many as 90% of embryos die within the first three weeks after conception. Women who have spontaneous abortions this early rarely even know they were ever pregnant. It may not be as high as 90%, but even a conservative estimate would give 60%, a clear majority.

What are we to say to this? Is our species afflicted with a plague? And if all human beings, from the moment of conception, deserve full moral standing, shouldn't we be focusing all our efforts on saving these tiny humans from the destruction that awaits them in the womb?

I will have to save my full response to this for another time, because I think it brings up a pile of philosophical assumptions that have to be waded through to get to the full answer. I admit, this is a serious problem for the pro-life movement on an intellectual level, but I remain optimistic. Let me throw in one quick observation and call it a day. I'm guessing about 90% of people in the world are dead by the time they are 90 years old. Does that mean we should also turn all of our focus toward saving old people and extending their life just a few more years? Obviously not. Valuing of human life does not mean we are willing to spend unlimited resources (which we don't have) to provide unlimited life and health to everyone (which we can't do). To return to my first point, we simply need to agree on some basic moral principles to guide our legal system, which are based on individual rights shared by all human beings.

While I fully endorse the right of all human beings in our society to live, work, worship, believe, teach, speak, and think as they like, and while I do fully endorse a woman's "right to choose" what to do with her own body, I do not consider it an exception to say that abortion should be illegal in a secular state guided by the rule of law. As a matter of scientific fact, we are killing thousands of human beings every day in clinics all around the country. The sooner we accept the moral implications of this fact, the sooner we can reform our society into the just society we all desire.