Something Can be Wrong Even if it Doesn’t Cause Suffering
One of the things Peter Singer was particularly focused on was the wrongness of inflicting suffering/harm on others. As a result, if something, such as an abortion, doesn’t inflict suffering because the pre-born child is not conscious and cannot feel pain, then, according to him, it is not wrong to do.
My mentor Scott Klusendorf had given me a good response, which I ended up using in the debate: Imagine you die and someone comes to your funeral and gives a speech saying all kinds of falsehoods about you. Imagine they brutally tear down your character with one lie after another. Because you are dead, you technically are not harmed by such calumny and detraction; you aren’t even aware of it. You therefore could not claim you’ve “suffered” by the person’s words. And yet, wouldn’t we still believe the person did something wrong? Moreover, wouldn’t we say that they wronged you in so far as tearing down your good character and misleading others as to what kind of person you had been?
Likewise, rather than get into a debate about the precise moment pre-born children feel pain (because at some point they don’t and abortion is still wrong), I wanted to impart that abortion is wrong not because the victim feels pain but because the victim is a human child.
Further, think about the implications of his view on the born: When someone is sleeping they aren’t aware. When someone is under anesthetic they aren’t aware. Surely it would be wrong to kill an individual who is sleeping or under anesthetic. If so, then that is proof one does not have to be aware, or even suffer, at the time of death for the infliction of homicide to still be wrong. Moreover, if someone were to say that sleeping individuals or those in surgery will come out of their unconscious state and subsequently be able to pursue a happy life—then the same could be said about pre-born children.
What We Expect of Moms and Dads
In January of 2020, I wrote this blog about a father, son, and friend who almost drowned in the ocean off the coast of Australia. The father’s love for his son is not something specific to that man, but is built into the nature of what it means to be father—or mother. In other words, all parents are meant to love, protect, and care for their offspring, not harm or kill them. That is why there is universal outrage when parents fail in this responsibility and inflict abuse on, and even end the lives of, their own children.
Abortion, in whatever form, ends the life of not just anyone, but of one’s own child, therefore violating the nature of the parent-child relationship. Whether abortion starves (early chemical abortion), dismembers (first-trimester suction abortion), decapitates and disembowels (second-trimester D & E abortion), or sucks out the child’s brain (D & X abortion), the method does not determine the morality. In all situations, one’s offspring is destroyed.
Peter Singer is known for being an animal rights activist, and given that he often puts humans and animals on the same level, it is worth pointing out that typically animals that are more like humans (e.g., other mammals) have mothers who go to great lengths to protect their offspring. In fact, in the debate I referenced a recent viral video of a runner in Utah who was stalked by a cougar for 6 minutes. Why did the cougar follow and threaten the runner for so long? Because the runner had been approaching the cougar’s two babies and the momma cougar thought he was a threat to her children. It seems to me that we humans should take a page out of this momma’s playbook—protect your offspring.
Header Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash