A campus group assembled last week for a demonstration in which they referred to other people on this campus as perpetrators and proponents of genocide. I am tempted to simply invoke Godwin’s law (the signs literally included swastikas), but I think there are some points worth making about the things said by Bama Students for Life.

I’m not really offended, as this paper’s editorial board was, by the choice of language in this case. I’m not particularly troubled that someone uses the word “genocide” when that is the accusation they are making. I’d rather they say it to my face than behind my back. Leaving aside a small quibble over usage, I’m not sure what the substantive difference is supposed to be between saying that the health care system providing abortion is genocide and that each abortion is a murder. I’m more troubled by the falsity of the accusation.

My views on abortion have shifted over time, from moderately pro-choice, to a full-throat, vehement support for abortion rights, and always from hearing new arguments, so I don’t really like to shut out new ones. So let’s talk about why abortion is neither genocide nor murder, shall we?

It seems to me that murder is not the act of killing any living thing, but rather the act of killing a person. So I always thought it was important to determine what a person was, in the morally relevant sense. I’m fairly committed to the concept that sentience is the important thing defining a person, so I’ve had no moral qualms about early abortion. Still, late-term abortion was a tough question for me on these grounds, because a fetus at that stage has a well-developed brain.

Initially, I reconciled this through the understanding that many if not most late-term abortions occurred because either the mother, the fetus or both would not survive delivery. I never found this terribly satisfying, but it seemed to be a good practical reason to continue to support the unabridged right to choose. I admit, however, that this was not an important issue to me. I’d have supported anti-abortion Democrats in order to get more of my political agenda accomplished.

What clinched my forcefulness on this is the bodily rights argument. Simply put, we don’t recognize the ability of the state to make demands on our bodies without our consent in other situations. Most of us would abhor a requirement for all citizens to become blood and tissue donors, and we don’t even make posthumous organ donation the default, and then require people to opt out – although the second is a good idea. In a country that supports the death penalty, we can’t even command those who we kill for crimes to donate their organs.

Any of those policies would save lives, but we think people get to make decisions about their own bodies, and this is more important. Except some of you do not want to afford that privilege to women. I think the burden should be on you to show why pregnant women deserve to have the right to their bodily autonomy revoked.

I’ll close on a point about labels in this debate: I refuse to call my opponents on this issue “pro-life.” For one, this ethic does not necessarily apply to all issues for them, e.g., capital punishment and Iraq. More importantly, I think they need to prove that they are seeking to save persons in the morally relevant sense, and in a way consistent with our other moral and legal values before they earn those laurels.

I’ll gladly concede the “pro-choice” label for myself, although there are some on my side who fit that description. Certainly many Catholic Democrats, for instance, seem sincere in their desire to hold apart their personal religious convictions from the way they write the laws for everyone else. For my part, though, I don’t just believe that women should be allowed to make a bad choice. I think that, notwithstanding the occasional error, most women make the right decisions for themselves about when to bear children, or at least better than can be imposed on them. The term “pro-abortion” fits me fine.

^

Brad Erthal is a doctoral student in economics. His column has run its course on Tuesdays.

A campus group assembled last week for a demonstration in which they referred to other people on this campus as perpetrators and proponents of genocide. I am tempted to simply invoke Godwin’s law (the signs literally included swastikas), but I think there are some points worth making about the things said by Bama Students for Life.

I’m not really offended, as this paper’s editorial board was, by the choice of language in this case. I’m not particularly troubled that someone uses the word “genocide” when that is the accusation they are making. I’d rather they say it to my face than behind my back. Leaving aside a small quibble over usage, I’m not sure what the substantive difference is supposed to be between saying that the health care system providing abortion is genocide and that each abortion is a murder. I’m more troubled by the falsity of the accusation.

My views on abortion have shifted over time, from moderately pro-choice, to a full-throat, vehement support for abortion rights, and always from hearing new arguments, so I don’t really like to shut out new ones. So let’s talk about why abortion is neither genocide nor murder, shall we?

It seems to me that murder is not the act of killing any living thing, but rather the act of killing a person. So I always thought it was important to determine what a person was, in the morally relevant sense. I’m fairly committed to the concept that sentience is the important thing defining a person, so I’ve had no moral qualms about early abortion. Still, late-term abortion was a tough question for me on these grounds, because a fetus at that stage has a well-developed brain.

Initially, I reconciled this through the understanding that many if not most late-term abortions occurred because either the mother, the fetus or both would not survive delivery. I never found this terribly satisfying, but it seemed to be a good practical reason to continue to support the unabridged right to choose. I admit, however, that this was not an important issue to me. I’d have supported anti-abortion Democrats in order to get more of my political agenda accomplished.

What clinched my forcefulness on this is the bodily rights argument. Simply put, we don’t recognize the ability of the state to make demands on our bodies without our consent in other situations. Most of us would abhor a requirement for all citizens to become blood and tissue donors, and we don’t even make posthumous organ donation the default, and then require people to opt out – although the second is a good idea. In a country that supports the death penalty, we can’t even command those who we kill for crimes to donate their organs.

Any of those policies would save lives, but we think people get to make decisions about their own bodies, and this is more important. Except some of you do not want to afford that privilege to women. I think the burden should be on you to show why pregnant women deserve to have the right to their bodily autonomy revoked.

I’ll close on a point about labels in this debate: I refuse to call my opponents on this issue “pro-life.” For one, this ethic does not necessarily apply to all issues for them, e.g., capital punishment and Iraq. More importantly, I think they need to prove that they are seeking to save persons in the morally relevant sense, and in a way consistent with our other moral and legal values before they earn those laurels.

I’ll gladly concede the “pro-choice” label for myself, although there are some on my side who fit that description. Certainly many Catholic Democrats, for instance, seem sincere in their desire to hold apart their personal religious convictions from the way they write the laws for everyone else. For my part, though, I don’t just believe that women should be allowed to make a bad choice. I think that, notwithstanding the occasional error, most women make the right decisions for themselves about when to bear children, or at least better than can be imposed on them. The term “pro-abortion” fits me fine.

Brad Erthal is a doctoral student in economics. His column has run its course on Tuesdays.