A Dialogue over coffee: Abortion and Euthanasia

Sophia popped in the coffee shop to find Jim sitting quietly in corner, watching his latte slowly cool down. She approached him and cheerfully asked, “What’s up?”
“Not much,” Jim offered as he lazily lifted his eyes.
“Got something on your mind?” Sophia wondered.
“Actually, yea. You got a few minutes?” Jim questioned.
“Sure. What are friends for?” Sophia plopped down into the booth.

“Well, it’s not like I’m upset or anything, I’ve just been trying to figure out this whole “pro-life” thing,” Jim said sarcastically, “My sister is always making a big deal about abortion is wrong, I think it’s because she once had a miscarriage, and she’s emotional about babies and blows it all way out of proportion. Now this past week, my grandma has been in the hospital and she’s slowly dying because of her alcoholism. I don’t think its right to make her go on and suffer when she’s going to die anyway. Why should we make her last moments so painful, why not just put her out of her misery?”
“What does your sister think?”
“She keeps saying that euthanasia is wrong for the same reason abortion is wrong. So we ended up having this whole argument about abortion. But the two are obviously totally different. Come on, how can you even compare the two? One deals with a decision that will affect the rest of your life and the other deals with sparing someone pain.”
“I imagine she means because they are both ending a human life.”
“Oh great, you’re anti-choice too?” Jim demanded with frustration.
“Well, no, I’m not anti-choice. I’m just not sure the heart of the issue in these situations is choice.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, I just want to make sure I understand your position--”
“So you don’t know yours?”
“No, I know mine. I just wanted to see where you were coming from on this. You think abortion is okay because…?”

“I’m not saying all abortion is okay. But there are definitely times when it is the best option. If the child is going to be raised in horrible situation, a bad or really poor house, and the mom doesn’t want it, she would be sparing the child a life of misery. There are probably a million different situations that would warrant an abortion, a dad who won’t support the kid, a family that disowns their teenage pregnant daughter, having to drop out of school, I could go on. Not to mention if the girl was raped or if she got pregnant from incest, or if her health is at risk if she gives birth. Does that answer your question?”
“Yea I gotcha. And you think euthanasia is okay because it puts the person out of their misery, right?”
“Again, I’m not saying you can apply it to any case, but with those who you know or going to die for sure, and if they want to go earlier, you’re just speeding up the inevitable.”
Sophia seemed to be gathering her thoughts as she looked over Jim’s head at the wall, and then offered in response, “I find it interesting that all the reasons you suggested to justify the ending of a human life deal with external consequences.”
“Well yea, that’s how you determine whether or not you should go on with it,” Jim replied.

“Well let me ask you this,” Sophia’s pitch slightly went up as she leaned forward, “If a 16 year-old girl is pregnant, does she have the right to have an abortion?”
“Well it depends on the circumstances. But in general, yea, definitely.”
“And this right is it given to her by her parents?”
“No. They should support her in her decision, but obviously a lot parents don’t care what their kids want.”
“So the right is given to her by the government?”
“No. The government is supposed to uphold and protect her right. But I don’t think the give it to her strictly speaking. I mean, if the government outlawed abortion, women would still have the right to an abortion, even if it was illegal.”
“So her right is not given to her by her parents or the government, do you somehow get this right at a certain age?”
“No.”
“Then where does it come from?”

Jim hesitated, “I guess you’re just born with it.”
“That’s interesting,” Sophia responded, “So what you’re saying is that there is some kind of universal principle that all people have and no one can take away from you.”
“Yes because each person should be able to make a decision for their own life and not be forced to do something they don’t want to do just because their parents or the government says they have to.”
“So each person has some set of rights from birth and it would be wrong if another person denied them one of these rights?”
“Yea.”
“So what happens at birth that makes a person receive this right?”
“You’re born! What do you mean what happens? That’s when you’re life begins. You know, you start breathing. You get vaccinations. You get your fingerprints taken. That’s when you become a citizen, a person, that’s where it all begins,” Jim seemed very surprised at Sophia’s question.

“I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying, each person gets all these things when they are born that are signs of some sort of inward, irremovable right?”
“Well I’m not sure about the way you said it, but when you’re born, you become a person. That seems pretty obvious. Are you saying you disagree with that?”
“I just think it is interesting that you think a person has some kind of right from the moment their life begins, because life doesn’t begin at birth, but at conception. Because when the sperm from the man joins to the egg in the woman, a new organism that is not part of the woman’s body begins to exist.”
“What do you mean, ‘not part of her body?’” Jim seemed puzzled.

“Well, there is a different between every other cell in the woman’s body and the cell’s belonging to the baby that has been conceived.”
“But that doesn’t matter because the baby’s life depends on the mother. That’s why it is hers to do what she wants with. She created it, it depends on her, and she can get rid of it if she wants.”
“Dependency doesn’t mean she has the right to kill it. A five year-old depends on his mother for food and a mentally retarded adult depends on his caretaker, can these be killed too?”
“That’s a ridiculous question. They are totally different.”
“No they're not at all. You’re not dealing with the baby himself, you’re only looking at the exterior factors. But you said yourself that each person is born with rights that are intrinsic to them, that no one can take away. You can deny them, but you can’t make these basic rights not exist because they are automatically included with the person. They are inherent to human nature. And what I am saying is that there is no substantial change at birth, only exterior change, namely, location. The unborn baby has a beating heart, a brain, and fully formed lungs. When he’s born it is the next step, but there is no fundamental change to his existence. He doesn’t receive anything that he doesn’t already have internally. And you said yourself, that no external factor can change his rights. So how can an external change of geography effect an internal change of rights?”

“Well I’ll have to think about that,” Jim quickly responded, “But either way, it definitely does not take away a woman’s right to have an abortion, even if a human life does begin at conception. She still has the right to have an abortion because it belongs to her. She is the one who created it.”
“First of all, it takes both the man and the woman to conceive a baby, why does the father get no say? Secondly, you said yourself that each person, who your admitting began to exist at conception, has a set of rights, and it would be wrong to deny that person their rights. And if being able to have an abortion is one of those rights, the baby who is killed by her mother’s abortion is being denied her right to one day have her own abortion. That baby is being denied her basic right by being killed. In order for the mother to enact her so called “right,” she has to deny her baby all of its rights. That seems to completely take away the point of a right.”
“Interesting. But that baby doesn’t need that right as a baby, because it can’t yet get pregnant,” Jim chuckled.

“If an intrinsic right is based on the ability to exercise that right, then every time you fall asleep, you lose all your rights.”
“Well, I don’t think anyone believes that,” Jim snickered.
“Actually, that’s the logically conclusion of what you just said. And as a matter of fact, one of the main arguments for the existence of personhood today is whether or not you are conscious. But that just means if I take a nap, I’m no longer a person, and I have no rights.”
“I’m not suggesting that.”
“I’m not saying that’s your starting point, but that’s your ending point.”
“Well I definitely am not proposing that, but this is all very interesting. I have never heard any of these points.”
“Well, I think the rights we have been talking about are missing the target.”
“Go on.” Jim seemed to be more curious.

“The rights you often hear about on the news are the right to privacy, the right to own property, the right to bear arms. But these are all based on one fundamental right, the right to life. That’s why our founding fathers said that all men have a ‘right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Think about it, if you don’t have a right to life, how can you have any other right? The rest are based on the first one. You have to be able to be born in order to own property. That’s why abortion and euthanasia are both wrong for the same reason, because they both deny the person their fundamental, intrinsic right to life. Integrity is not an award granted by the mother, the government, or anyone. But it comes as a package deal with life at the moment of conception. So what makes it wrong to kill an innocent adult is the same thing that makes abortion wrong. The two actions are the same in their essence, namely, the unjust killing of human beings.”
Jim finished the rest of his latte and seemed a bit unsatisfied at this point, or at least no longer interested in the conversation. “Well thanks for you input. You gave me a few points to chew on, but I gotta roll. I’ll catch you later on.”