Recently Donald Trump has made comments on abortion which have caused a firestorm. On Chris Mathews Hardball, Donald Trump suggested that women who obtain abortions should face some sort of punishment. Instead of yelling at one another, or condemning Trump as an ignoramus, we could use this opportunity to seriously analyze philosophical issues regarding abortion.
For the record, although I would never choose to have my wife get an abortion, I think women have the right to choose. If this puts me at odds with many conservatives, that’s alright. If that makes me prochoice, that’s alright as well. I think it should be left up to the states to decide.
I suspect the reason many people have reacted so vehemently to Trump’s proposal, is that it forces some of us to confront an inconvenient truth. It is a common belief among so called pro-lifers that an unborn child is equivalent to a person. If terminating an unborn child is truly killing a person, why shouldn’t the mother be prosecuted along with a doctor?
If a mother hands over a five day old child to a doctor, knowing that said doctor intends on injecting poison into the child’s vanes, undoubtedly the mother would be prosecuted as an accessory to murder. The fact that the doctor was the person, who physically injected the poison into the child’s vanes, is immaterial. Such an argument is no defense.
But if an unborn person is equivalent to a child, I can see very little if any difference between the above scenario and a mother who goes into an abortion clinic. A woman goes into an abortion clinic with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. She voluntarily allows a procedure to be done to her that she knows will result in the termination of an unborn baby. If an unborn child is truly a person, surely the fact that the doctor performs the procedure can be no defense to criminal liability. Either life begins at conception, or at some time before birth, or it doesn’t. So, if life begins before birth, and ending a person’s life is murder, what reason can be provided to justify not holding the mother criminally liable as well?
Governor Huckabee attempted to explain away the contradiction by suggesting the mother is not prosecuted because the prolife movement is interested in redemption. But, as Christians we believe redemption is available to anyone who commits sin. However, this doesn’t prevent us from prosecuting murderers daily.
One benefit of Donald Trump’s presence in this race is it has caused us to examine issues which wouldn’t otherwise be discussed. We’ve discussed border security, how to protect religious freedom while fighting radical Islam, and now philosophical arguments on abortion. I for one have found myself conflicted with my beliefs that an unborn child is a person, while also being repulsed by the idea of a woman facing criminal prosecution for having an abortion. The fact that Trump has subsequently retracted his remarks provides no solace for me. As for myself, I have yet to come to a satisfactory resolution.
Instead of the repugnance of the above result causing us to lash out at a candidate, perhaps it should cause us to examine our beliefs. Otherwise, I guess we’re left with the conclusion that an unborn child is a person, just not one for whom killing is a crime.