The Utopian Analysis of Abortion

Analysis of Abortion

Murder and the Social Contract

The ideal of reciprocity (the social contract) lies at the heart of civilization, and finds many applications. It defines murder and citizenship. Reciprocity is the golden rule and the mosaic law, the basis of economics and marriage. Put more formally, it means something for me, if you want something for you. Pay for work. Profit for investment. You help me and I will help you. A person with a lot of good friends is a good friend to a lot of people. Hobbes and Locke recognized that the essential glue of society is a kind of social contract, that all those physically capable of committing murder make with one another. Each member contracts with the others not to kill them, if they won't kill him. This does not refer to any historical period preceding the social contract, nor to any formal ritual. It is a gedanken experiment, showing the essential logic of the social contract, or as I call it, the ideal of reciprocity.

The refutation of socialism leaves the ideal of reciprocity as the only known alternative for this class of problems. I base my analysis of morality, legality and virtue on reciprocity. We must make this analysis in order to make any headway on the abortion controversy. There is no solution which will completely satisfy fanatics, but I can make a proposal which may be acceptable to the moderates on both sides.

Murder

Every community's moral code contains an injunction against murder. But is abortion murder? If it is, we must execute the mother and the doctor in the name of consistency. A few dangerous fanatics have been doing just that. But such actions are repudiated by most anti-abortion groups.

So what is murder? I take a strictly anthropological view on this. In a general way, every community defines morality in the same way. It is murder to kill a full citizen of ones own community. In today's world, we are developing a global community, so except in time of war, there is no full citizen of the global community who can be killed with impunity, without being charged with murder. What is a full citizen? A full citizen is "full" of rights, responsibilities and capabilities.

We offer full rights and responsibilities only to those who are capable of reciprocating, and capable of assuming the full rights and responsibilities of a citizen. In other words, we answer this question with the ideal of reciprocity. As a thought-experiment, or as a teaching tool for moral precepts, we contract with everyone who could murder us but won't, if we won't murder them. It was the Renaissance English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who recognized this as the basic "social contract," the logical basis of the moral tradition.

Morality

Morality is the strongest, most important and most universal of the three "oughts". Anthropologists tell us the moral tradition worldwide is to ingrain a tabu against murder into a child from an early age, so it becomes psychologically impossible to commit murder. We call this personality trait "the conscience." It is not innate, nor divine, nor a universal natural law. It is simply a tradition, and different communities have different traditions. When this traditional socialization does not happen, the result is a sociopath, a wild animal, lacking the minimum requirement for entry into society, which is a conscience. A person lacking a conscience is the most dangerous and unpredictable wild animal. Thus, we should not allow a sociopath into house or city. It would be prudent to shoot him on sight, like a rogue elephant or a rabid dog.

The moral tradition has content, scope and strength. Content is whatever is tabu or required. While murder is always tabu, a requirement to defend the community to the death is also usually included in the moral tradition, and sometimes various sexual tabus.

Scope defines the group with moral rights. The moral tradition gives some people rights by means of a correlative obligation placed on everyone else. Who is protected by the tabu on murder? There is no known society where the scope is "everyone."

Finally, strength has to do with the degree of success of a community in giving everyone a conscience. The Zuni, for instance, have traditionally been quite successful. In modern times, there has never been a murder by a traditional Zuni. Clearly the larger American society has a much weaker moral tradition, much weaker than European society or some of the First Nations. We are not yet consistently successful in giving everyone a conscience.

Only a sociopath is capable of committing murder. A strong moral tradition is advantageous, because it means there are few or no sociopaths. It is better to live in a community with a strong moral code than to live in a community with a weak moral code. A conscience works all the time. It works even when a potential perpetrator gains something by murder, and even when he could get away with it.

Why Execution is not Murder

We can execute murderers without ourselves committing murder, because a murderer has demonstrated the absence of a conscience. He has proven himself to be a sociopath. He has clearly broken the social compact and thus, is not a citizen, not a member of the community protected by the tabu on murder, no more than insects or bacteria. Murderers can be exterminated like flies, or bacteria, or mad dogs, without breaking the moral code.

Why Abortion is not Murder

So why isn't abortion murder? It is because of the principle of reciprocity. A fetus cannot commit murder, and thus is not a party to the social contract. Up to the age of eight a child is not a full citizen, essentially because he is unable to commit murder, get a job, vote, drive, start a family and so forth. Until age eight, a child is the ward of its parents or guardians, almost their property, to be taught or disciplined as the guardians choose (within limits).

Thus, the ideal of reciprocity shows us that abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder, not the unforgivable evil calling for execution of the mother. And past experience shows us that making abortion illegal produces "coathanger" abortions, raising maternal mortality, essentially zero today. On the other hand we cannot regard abortion with complete indifference, a matter of personal choice as casual as trimming ones nails. Killing a fetus may not be murder, but it is not exactly a virtue either. We could argue all day about whether a fetus is a person, but certainly it will become a person unless we deliberately kill it. It has already passed all the major hurdles that could terminate it.

Fetus vs Blastocyst

Incidentally, use of the "morning-after" pill is not abortion, because a fertilized egg is not yet a fetus, and has only a 30% chance of becoming one. The "morning-after" pill just lowers those odds. The subdividing ball of cells develops into a blastocyst. Even a blastocyst is not a fetus. A blastocyst is just a hollow ball of cells, with a small pile of stem cells inside. If a blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall, the uterus must create the amniotic sack within which the blastocyst begins to differentiate. Many encounter some mistake in differentiation and spontaneously abort and the woman simply has a late period. By the way, there should be no moral difficulties in performing scientific experiments on blastocysts and stem cells, which can be created in the lab, unlike a fetus, which cannot be created in the lab.

Without abortion, a fetus will almost certainly become a cuddly newborn, a charming toddler, a fascinating teenager and possibly the savior of civilization. So, I believe a fetus, unlike the ball of cells or the blastocyst, deserves some consideration from society.

Definition of a Citizen

At the age of eight, we should have a coming of age ceremony, in which we welcome the child to the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. This follows from the ideal of reciprocity, all because a child of eight is capable of becoming an apprentice, operating a motor vehicle, and committing murder. By age eight, a child is expected to have a conscience. If he doesn't, immediate remedial action must be taken, before it is too late.

In earlier times, the definition of a citizen was much more restricted than this. In 18th--19th Century America, only white males old enough to carry a gun were full citizens. Slaves could be killed without being charged with murder. One might be charged with destroying someone else's property. In classical Japanese society, only the Samurai were citizens and could freely kill peasants for any reason or no reason. I wish to make the definition of a full citizen as broad as is consistent with reciprocity. As a consequence, I am an advocate for child rights, for children eight or older.

Does it follow one can freely kill one's own children if they are under eight? No, not freely. Not without consequence. Assuming the child dies by neglect, or incorrect punishment (shaking, for instance, which can kill an infant) rather than deliberate murder, the adults responsible might be charged with wrongful death or something less than pre-meditated murder. It is a bit like animal abuse. We do not allow people to freely abuse their own animals, or their own children. In the case of a severely handicapped newborn, there is no criminal charge if the parents decide not to offer the infant any food or water, although some (not I) might regard it as a virtue to take on the overwhelming responsibility of raising such a child.

In many ways, we already recognize legal differences if the victim is a child. These laws protect the child as perpetrator, because we regard wrongful actions by children as accidents. The laws protect the child as victim, from failure to nurture and from incest and child abuse. The usual result of child abuse is that the child becomes the ward of the court, and is raised in foster families or orphanages.

Legality and Virtue

The second kind of "ought" is legal. Only complex societies having cities and large populations and strangers have legal systems. Primitive tribes may not require legality. It is relatively easy to change the law, and relatively easy to enforce it when it consists of actions carried out in public view, and impossible otherwise.

The third level of "ought" is virtue. Like morality, virtue is created and maintained mostly by tradition, but there is an element of personal choice. Standards of virtue vary with family and class. Things we consider virtuous (like public service) are not obligatory. Not doing the virtuous thing may meet with disapproval among ones friends and acquaintances, but it is not the absolutely unforgivable evil of breaking the moral code, i.e. murder (discussed in more detail in the chapter "Lady Justice"). We can forgive someone who fails sometimes to live up to the standards of virtue prevalent in one's family and social circle.

A Compromise on Abortion

At the present time, the conflict between the right-to-life people and the freedom-of-choice people is so acrimonious, even violent, it seems impossible they should ever come together and agree on anything. But wouldn't they both agree abortion is not a virtue? And wouldn't they both agree it is a virtue for the pregnant woman to carry her baby to term for the sake of a sterile couple, instead of killing it? Then instead of making abortion illegal, we simply change the law to give sterile couples a week or so to try to persuade the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term and let them adopt it. Let childless couples interested in adopting a newborn interview every woman applying for an abortion. And, in a way, the pregnant woman is interviewing them.

If a sterile couple thinks the biological parents have good genes, and the mother is not drinking or using drugs, and is eating properly, getting prenatal care, they might offer to pay all medical expenses of the pregnant woman, offer wages for nine months of inconvenience and a few hours of hard labor, offer the woman a place to live, and throw in a cruise trip afterward. And other couples might do likewise. This must be done under the watchful eye of the magistrate, so the pregnant woman doesn't make contracts with more than one couple. These are binding contracts.

Such a contract is not the same as buying a child. It is simply paying the pregnant woman for her time and inconvenience.

The childless couples and the pregnant woman should not come face to face. No names should be exchanged, and no addresses. All information about genetic diseases in the baby's inheritance is disclosed to the childless couples. Adopted children should never be told they are adopted. The birth mother should not be allowed to see or hold the newborn baby, otherwise she will change her mind, and decide she wants to keep the child. It should instead be given immediately to the adoptive mother, to begin the process of bonding. Without such rules, the birth mother may feel guilty, and seek to track down "her" child. Or the child may try to track down the biological parents. This often winds up in the courts, which have usually ruled in favor of the biological parent. This is the wrong ruling, and such court proceedings would not be possible if the records were sealed. We should not forget that the biological mother was prepared to kill the child. Biology doesn't make someone a parent. The records should be sealed forever, and guarded jealously by the magistrates.

The solution to the abortion controversy presented in this chapter will not result in the production of babies for sale, because of the birth licensing requirement. A woman who repeatedly gets pregnant without a birth license will lose her reproductive rights. I propose that no one can keep a child or repeatedly get pregnant without a birth license. The number of birth licenses will be scientifically set to reach a stable population in a century or so. Roughly, the same number of birth licenses will be given out as death certificates. Halting the population bomb is job one for saving the planet. The local magistrate will decide who gets a birth license and who does not.

We have taken two problems, put them together, and let them solve each other. On the one hand, we have the problem of sterile couples, and the desperate, expensive and usually futile struggles of heroic medicine to impregnate a woman whose biological clock has run out of time. It is also difficult to find a normal infant baby to adopt. The other problem is a woman who does not wish to be a mother (or a mother again in some cases).

Virtue

The virtue of carrying an unwanted fetus to term for the sake of sterile couples recognizes an element of truth in both the right-to-life position and the freedom-of-choice position. It recognizes that abortion is not like clipping your toenails, and can have serious long term consequences for society, and for the life of the woman who has the abortion. I shall give you a personal example.

When my mother was pregnant with me, she was diagnosed with cancer of the cervix and womb, and both our GP and the specialist advocated immediate hysterectomy, with the abortion of myself. But my mother was stubborn and heroic. She insisted on carrying me to term. After my birth, the doctors were surprised to find no sign of cancer on the cervix or in my mother's womb, and as I write this, she is now a spry 80, while I have so far been granted 58 years to try to save civilization. If my mother had permitted the abortion, then Utopian Analysis would never have arisen. It still may not. Creating a scientific discipline is a cooperative enterprise. But at least the idea has been planted.

A normal fetus means everything to a childless and sterile couple, even though it is considered worthless to the biological mother. And that is why it is a virtue for the pregnant woman to go through the embarrassment, inconvenience and pain of carrying the fetus to term and delivering it, for their sake. Birth licensing requirements would not allow her to keep the baby for herself, in most cases. The alternatives are usually abortion or adoption.

Home