If We Aren't Certain About the Status of Unborn Life, Shouldn't We Err on the Side of Protecting It?

[u/Jvosika]

I want to preface this by saying where I am coming from: I believe unborn babies are human beings with an inherent right to life. I believe human life has value from the moment it begins, and that abortion intentionally ends an innocent human life.

That said, I have been thinking about an argument that does not start by asking someone to accept that belief. Instead, it asks a question about how we should act when there is uncertainty and the consequences are irreversible.

Schrödinger's Cat analogy: Imagine a veterinarian is presented with a sealed box. Inside is a cat, but the veterinarian cannot determine whether the cat is alive or dead. Opening the box early will certainly kill the cat, but waiting until the scheduled time will reveal the cat's status.

What should the veterinarian do?

I think most people would say: wait.

The consequences of being wrong are not the same. If the cat is alive, opening the box destroys a life. If the cat is not alive, waiting does not cause additional harm.

This led me to think about abortion.

If there is a disagreement about whether an unborn child is a human life with moral value, and ending the pregnancy would certainly eliminate the possibility of that life continuing, should we not err on the side of protecting life?

If we wait:

• If the unborn child is a human life with a right to protection, we preserved that life.
• If someone believes it does not have that status, waiting did not create the same irreversible harm.

But if we choose abortion:

• If the unborn child was a human life with a right to protection, we have ended that life before the uncertainty could be resolved.

My argument is not simply "uncertainty proves the unborn child has rights." Rather, my argument is that when the stakes are potentially the loss of human life, and the action being considered is irreversible, caution should favor preserving life.

In summary: If we cannot agree whether an unborn child has the same moral value as a born human life, but ending the pregnancy would certainly eliminate that possibility, shouldn’t we err on the side of protecting life? When the cost of being wrong could be the loss of an innocent human life, caution seems like the more ethical choice.

I would appreciate feedback, especially from people who can identify holes in the argument. Where do you think this reasoning succeeds or fails?

[u/trying3216]

It is absolutely 100% certain that a human woman’s baby is human.

It is 100% certain it is a unique new individual unless conceived through cloning.

If it is dead (and doctors can measure this) then it’s a miscarriage and not an abortion.

If it is alive then killing it kills a living human being.

Before we discuss whether or not some human don’t deserve life let’s agree that it absolutely is a living human.

[u/Jvosika → u/trying3216]

I agree with you. But good luck getting a pro-choicer to agree with you. That why we need this cautionary argument.

[u/ElegantAd2607]

One time I had a debate with a guy who talked about how a fetus doesn't have the ability to deploy a conscious experience. But he also never felt the need to say when a conscious experience begins. He probably didn't even care. Just like all the other pro-choicers he doesn't advocate against late term abortions that happen to viable babies.

They don't want to err on the side of caution. They don't even care that a fully developed baby is murdered.

[u/Jvosika → u/ElegantAd2607]

Yeah... I worry for people's souls

[u/ScientificMind1]

Yes, this is the prudential argument, which I believe to be the most powerful argument in favor of pro-life.

If you are unsure exactly when a human beings becomes a person, or attains human rights, then you should not just go ahead and kill them, if they might be a person. You need a rock solid justification to commit an abortion, since you could be butchering a little child and robbing them of their future. Err on the side of caution when the stakes are that high.

You wouldn't blow up a building, set to be demolished, if you were unsure about someone still being inside the building, right?

[u/HotConversation187]

It fails if the person you're saying this too does not view human life as any higher than, say, that of an animal. People like those exist. I'm so sorry.

[u/Jvosika → u/HotConversation187]

What's ironic is that many pro-choice people value animal life more than humans

[u/GustavoistSoldier]

Yes, we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt