I hear lots of folks in the pro-life side of the abortion debate insist on characterizing those on the other side of the debate as "pro-abortion." They insist that being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" are really just two different labels for the same thing. Of course, if these really are just two different labels for same thing, then why insist on using "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" since either would be an equally good way of describing the position? It's more than a little curious why a person that really believes these are just two different labels for the same thing would insist on using one phrase over the other. So, perhaps something more is going on here. I'm tempted to say that characterization of the "pro-choice" side as "pro-abortion" is a convenient and self-serving attempt to frame the issue in a way that's disadvantageous for the opposition because it seems to define them as having less than noble intentions.
At any rate, I find this aspect of the pro-life community rather confusing because most people in the pro-life community - the pro-life label not withstanding - are willing to accept that abortion is permissible in some cases, e.g. if the mother's life is in danger, entropic pregnancy, etc. In order to defend abortion under these circumstances the pro-lifers often appeal to what's called the doctrine of the double effect. According to this doctrine, there's a distinction between "killing", i.e. intending to do harm, and "letting die", i.e. permitting a negative side or double effect of the means used to achieve well intended ends. So, if a mother's life is in danger it is permissible to let or allow the termination of the unborn baby's life in order to fulfill the intention to save the mother's life. The idea is that there's a difference between directly and explicitly intending to kill someone and letting or allowing them to die as an unintended and indirect side or double effect. It's a distinction that is central to debates over the permissiblity of "active" vs. "passive" euthanasia as well.
Now, here's my question: can the pro-lifer both appeal to the doctrine of the double effect and insist that there is no difference between being pro-abortion (i.e. intending to kill, abort, etc.) and being pro-choice (i.e. intending to protect autonomy, reproductive freedom, etc.) without contradiction? Here, I'm not interested in the issue of whether or not we should accept or reject the doctrine of the double effect, which is a related but distinct issue. I'm just interested in whether or not a person that does accept the doctrine of the double effect can coherently appeal to that doctrine to defend their view that abortion is permissible in some cases and deny that there is a distinction between being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice." Alternatively, can someone that denies there is a distinction between killing and letting die coherently deny that there's a difference between being "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice"?
No comments:
Post a Comment