Once an embryo is implanted and past the initial stages of pregnancy, the woman’s body will kick into gear and produce all of the conditions needed to deliver a human child. Thus, if no action is taken to impede the pregnancy, most pregnancies will result in the development and delivery of a child. Accordingly, taking action to intervene in and terminate that process is harmful and immoral, particularly when done by a medical professional that has taken an oath to do no harm.
First of all, in the case of in vitro fertilization, eggs are fertilized outside of the womb. If those eggs are never placed back inside of the woman, then they will never be on that track towards developing into a child. This is one of the reasons that it appears to me that the moral case for IVF is stronger than the moral case for an abortion. There is, of course, another even more obvious reason that IVF is morally permissible. That procedure is undertaken not for the purpose of terminating life, but for the purpose of helping a couple that could not otherwise get pregnant to bring a child to the world. As such, IVF is the opposite of an abortion procedure in its aims and purpose.
We might also briefly consider a consequentialist argument on this point. If we hope to encourage child-birth and child rearing, then forcing a parent to carry a child to term when it is practically certain that the child will die after birth fails to achieve this goal. Parents in these circumstances often desperately want a child. It may be far better to allow for the termination of a failed pregnancy and to allow parents to try again. Otherwise, the emotional and physical stigma of carrying a stillborn child to full term may discourage these very deserving and desirous parents from having the child they want.
We should do whatever we can to make adoption easy, painless, and stigma-free. We should invest resources to improve child welfare and foster care systems. Somewhat more controversially, I believe we should also make birth control and other forms of contraception that do not require an abortion widely available. If we are willing to use the force of the state to compel a woman to keep a pregnancy, then we must be also prepared to use our wealth for the benefit of those who are impacted by these laws.
As President Nelson explained: Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Because the woman’s freedom of choice was denied, it intuitively feels wrong to require her to bear the consequences of something that was thrust upon her. The case of a rape most closely resembles the famous hypothetical of the “violinist” where a woman wakes up attached to a famous violinist who will die if the woman unplugs from him.
But the number of deaths due to childbirth is actually quite small. The CDC estimates that about 700 women a year die in the whole United States from pregnancy related complications. Now that number is a lot higher than it probably should be. But it is still only .01% of the nearly 4,000,000 births in the United States. Given the extremely positive prognosis for pregnancy, it seems morally reasonable to require a woman to bear the difficulties of pregnancy in order to save the life of a separate human child.
On the other hand, many states today employ an exceptionally broad definition of “health” to encompass practically any and all physical or mental discomfort. Such a broad exception for the “health” of the mother essentially swallows the rule and cannot be justified.
In my judgment this is the most unassailable of the four pillars, as it is definitionally always the case with any viable pregnancy. That embryo in the womb is in every way a unique human being with his or her own genetic structure, organs, blood type, etc. And this is foundationally true from the moment of conception, at least with regard to DNA.
Some might argue that this pillar is absent in cases of serious fetal abnormality, such that the child will almost certainly not live a happy or normal life. But as President Nelson explained, “Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities.” And refusing to acknowledge this point moves down the slippery slope that has led to some of the greatest evils of human history from eugenics to genocide:
“To deny life to an individual because of a possible handicap is a very serious matter. Policy consistent with that logic would dictate that those already living with such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. One more step in that tragic train of thought would lead to the conclusion that those who are either infirm or inconvenient should also be eliminated. Such irreverence for life would be totally unthinkable!”
But I find President Nelson’s response to that argument to be quite persuasive: Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. To understand this concept more clearly, we can learn from the astronaut. Anytime during selection or preparation, he or she is free to withdraw from the program. But once the spacecraft has lifted off, the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make the journey. So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made. Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot ‘unchoose.’ As President Nelson explains, we ultimately choose the consequences of our actions. Therefore an ordinary pregnancy is chosen even if the outcome was not a desired one.
There appears to me to be two deviations from this norm. The first is a situation where a form of birth control fails and results in an unanticipated pregnancy. A couple may have done everything possible to minimize the chances of a pregnancy to less than 1%, and yet a pregnancy unexpectedly results. This does not appear to me to be a serious challenge to President Nelson’s claim. Perhaps the odds of pregnancy were very low, but when one voluntarily engages in an inherently procreative act, one is aware of the possibility of pregnancy and accepting the possibility of that consequence.
Once an embryo is implanted and past the initial stages of pregnancy, the woman’s body will kick into gear and produce all of the conditions needed to deliver a human child. Thus, if no action is taken to impede the pregnancy, most pregnancies will result in the development and delivery of a child. Accordingly, taking action to intervene in and terminate that process is harmful and immoral, particularly when done by a medical professional that has taken an oath to do no harm.