Abortion 4: An infinite continuum of grey

So, now we reach abortion itself. There are several components that complicate this issue for me, which make it impossible for me to see the issue as black and white. And it is my inability to see it as clear and definably wrong that cause me to conclude that it must be left up to the judgment of the individual.

1) A continuum of moral greys

Is condom use immoral? Contraceptives? The morning after pill? First trimester abortion? Second? Third?

The Catholic church, as far as I know, still thinks that the use of condoms and contraceptives go against the will of God. I've heard the argument that Abortion simply eliminates the negative consequences of sexual choices. Well, don't condoms and contraceptives do the same thing?

For one, we'll have to approach this with the mindset that not all sex is evil. Let's propose a situation where there is a newly married couple. The husband is unemployed, recently laid off from his job. The wife works only part time. They're struggling every day to make ends meet. Neither of them have health insurance, because they can't afford it. They can barely pay rent and buy food.

It's foolish to say that they shouldn't have sex. They're married. But they're obviously not in a position where they can and should start raising children. They can't even support themselves. Does your moral compass say that they can use condoms? Birth control pills?

Now, let's say they're using condoms, and one breaks. Is it immoral for them to use the morning after pill?

Let's say 3 weeks later, they find out that the wife is pregnant. At this point, is it moral for them to abort the baby? When they know that they can't afford food to keep the baby healthy during the pregnancy? When they know that they can't afford to go to the hospital and pay the bills to have the baby delivered, because they don't have health insurance - and what insurance will sign them up now, even if they could afford it?

"Put the kid up for adoption!" Well, the adoption "market" is already over-saturated. This baby being born will mean another orphan in Ethiopia will get passed up for a newborn white baby. Is that really better?

At this point, the fetus is a few cells clumped together, does its chance at life matter more than an orphan that is already starving and dying alone?

It's not an easy decision, and it will be agonizing for the two parents. But the point is this - 1) It's not an easy, black and white decision. It will have life-altering consequences for many people. 2) Different people will handle this situation very differently. A person who doesn't believe that condom use is moral might already have two kids, or more. Another might have the kid when the condom breaks. Another might use the morning after pill. Another might go so far as an early stage abortion. And as you get later and later in the pregnancy, fewer and fewer feel comfortable making that decision. It's not black and white, it is a gradual continuum of grey.

2) When does life begin?

This is the question. At what point does this collection of cells become a life? Does such a thing have a soul?

Few people see a sperm as a half a soul swimming toward its other half, to be blissfully joined as God intended. That's why most people are okay with condom use. That's why masturbation isn't the murder of billions of potential souls.

So, is a life really created when a sperm and an egg meet? Instantly, there's a new life? It's a one celled organism, right? It's comparable to a bacteria. We don't feel bad when we Lysol the kitchen counters. But we're going to say that this specific cell has a life and a soul because it has the potential to grow into a human?

A lot of the idea of this question being black and white comes from people with religious upbringing. Because they can look at a one celled organism and say, "This has a soul." But for non-religious people, it's just a cell. A cell with great potential, yes, but just a cell. It doesn't have consciousness and thought. And if we're going to make a blanket legislation that all people have to abide by, we have to reach a consensus that people of all religious backgrounds - from Christians, to Muslims, to free-spirited hippies, to athesits - can agree on. And so, we can't do it based on the mystical spiritual idea of a soul. We have to decide when this clump of cells is a human being.

It's something that people of different upbringings will see in very different ways. Once again, a Catholic may see using a condom as preventing the will of God. Another person may say that it's perfectly moral to use a condom and prevent a pregnancy, but then once a pregnancy occurs, you MUST have the baby, regardless of the negative consequences on the family, the baby, and society as a whole. Some people will see a clump of cells as just that - a clump of cells. And they see removing that clump of cells as exactly the same thing as using a birth control pill. Both prevent a human life from eventually forming. And, once again, most people would pale at the idea of a third trimester abortion.

My point is that the idea of when a human life begins varies quite greatly depending on your world view, your religious beliefs, etc. It depends on how you see and define what a human is. Whether you believe in the soul. And, therefore we cannot legislate this decision without oppressing the beliefs of anyone else who believes that life begins sooner or later.

We'll discuss more the implications and consequences of such legislation in the next section.