Though I gave both sides of the abortion debate roughly equal space in the last two days as I presented excerpts from responses to my recent thought experiment on the artificial womb, the fact is that letters from those opposing abortion outnumbered those from supporters of abortion rights about 3-1.
And in addressing this question–does considering the prospect of artificial human gestation throw any new light on the ideas of “reproductive choice” and “right to life?”–I must admit that abortion foes came out ahead in quality as well as quantity. They tackled the subject with mostly clear and non-zealous reference to principle and logic, while the proponents tended to dodge key issues and fall back on abstractions.
I admit this rather than trumpet it because I count myself as pro-abortion rights and was hoping my side would do better. In fact, as this trend became apparent early on, I appealed privately to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League for a considered response. But the organization, perhaps the most influential pro-abortion rights lobby in the country and one that has always been responsive to my requests for input in the past, ignored my e-mail and phone requests.
This little failure strikes me as symbolic of a larger truth, one that others have also observed lately: Abortion-rights advocates have grown polemically flabby in the nearly quarter of a century since Roe vs. Wade because, with the law on their side at least for now, they have been able to dismiss the hard questions of their opponents as the carping of fanatics or else trump them by playing the validated if somewhat vague “right to choose” card.
Abortion foes, meanwhile, energized by the Roe defeat, have been vigorous and resourceful in comparison. It was inevitable that they would someday find an issue like the egregiously demagogued debate over “partial birth” abortion to refocus popular attention on the moral status of the fetus at various stages, and almost as inevitable that abortion-rights supporters would fire back with the broad assertions and euphemisms that have so long sustained them.
One purpose of my thought experiment was to examine what happens philosophically if we reduce the pivotal age of fetal viability–now roughly 25 weeks of gestation, the point after which most laws and most people deeply discourage abortion–to zero. Isolated from the now-necessary physical connection with a possibly reluctant woman, what status would the “product of conception” have in an artificial womb at what age and why?
Abortion-rights defenders deflected this question with a reassertion of a right to reproductive choice and bodily integrity–an artificial womb “would still require that women undergo invasive medical procedures that government cannot morally or legally compel,” argued a Planned Parenthood official–far more sweeping than I believe most people are comfortable with.
Abortion foes, meanwhile, at least tried to meet the other main purpose of the thought experiment, which was to probe the limits of their commitment to life–to the million-plus extra babies unwanted by their biological mothers, including those with profound genetic defects, who would theoretically emerge from artificial wombs each year.
Several acknowledged their ethical obligation to help bear that burden while observing that it would only underscore the need–also promoted by abortion-rights activists–to work harder as a culture to prevent unintended conception.
The abortion-rights position has always addressed real-world predicaments better than the anti-abortion position. This, along with its OK from the courts, has compensated for its blurry moral underpinnings since at least the Roe decision in 1973.
The advantage will not necessarily last. Many people are profoundly conflicted about abortion, and the insidious “partial birth” issue–much more so than science-fiction thought experiments by newspaper columnists–has changed the terms of the debate in a way that is not necessarily unfair, and that abortion-rights advocates must address with passion and at every opportunity if they hope to maintain their fragile supremacy.
This minor defeat in a rhetorical skirmish over the unlikely prospect of artificial wombs foreshadows real losses down the line of important social and political territory, including the high ground. A thought experiment on that prospect ought to rally the troops.
———-
Find a generous sample of responses to the artificial womb discussion, reader correspond-
ence and links to Internet sites offering diverse information and opinion on the issue at Http://www.chicago.tribune.com/zorn
