In 2019, there was an abortion debate between UNC criminology professor, Dr. Mike Adams, and American physician, Dr. Willie Parker, in which the topic of the debate was "Is this reproductive right or a moral wrong". The full debate is available at the bottom of this blog.
What made the debate of particular interest was because, Dr. Parker, who had performed numerous abortions and was on the side of "reproductive rights", was also a self-professing Christian. As a Christian myself, I was curious about Dr. Parker's reasoning for performing abortions. What makes debates like these valuable is you get to hear both sides of an argument and, occasionally, you might hear something that you hadn’t considered before, forcing you to rethink your position.
Allow me to preface this with saying that I believe both men genuinely and sincerely believe that what they are arguing is good and true. I do not believe one man is blood thirsty or the other power hungry and I have no interest in painting either man in that light. The nature of the debate, however, only leaves room for one side to be correct, abortion is either a reproductive right or a moral wrong.
I might also add that I am an advocate for the pro-life position and, although I might be accused of critiquing this debate from a biased position, I do try to substantiate and justify my position, as you’ll see below.
A Solid Pro-life Argument:
As the debate began, Dr. Adams, defending the pro-life position, presented his opening argument with the following syllogism:
1) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
2) Abortion kills an innocent human being
3) Therefore, abortion is wrong
Simple and straight forward. Any student of logic knows that if a deductive argument is logically valid and the premises are more plausibly true than false, then the conclusion follows necessarily. It was the task of Dr. Adams, then, to defend those premises and the task of Dr. Parker to identify flaws or provide defeaters to that argument.
A Major Concession:
Remarkably, Dr. Adams needn't to defend either premise because, at 30:25-38 in the debate, I was stunned to hear Dr. Parker agree with both premises, saying: "You heard Dr. Adams [as] he laid out his syllogism and he said that 'It is wrong to kill an innocent human being', I agree, uh 'abortion kills a human being', I agree."
Now, to be fair, Dr. Parker does go on to make a distinction between being human and being a person. But, before I address that, let's first understand what Dr. Parker has just explicitly admitted to. He admitted that 1) it is wrong to kill an innocent human being and 2) that abortion kills an innocent human being. If those two premises of Dr. Adam's argument are true, which Dr. Parker admits they are, then it necessarily follows that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being, there is no escape from that conclusion. I want you to appreciate the significance of this concession by Dr. Parker. Even if the premises in Dr. Adams' argument were false, Dr. Parker's admission concedes the entire debate. Dr. Parker seems oblivious to the fact that he has handed over the entire debate within the first 6 min of his opening statement. Now, I do think Dr. Adams has provided an argument that is both logically valid and, even by Dr. Parker's own admission, sound. The only logical conclusion, then, is the one provided by Dr. Adams, that abortion is wrong. Case, closed. Debate, over.
A Human Being, But Not A Human Person?
Nevertheless, in the spirit of follow through, the debate must go on and the real goal here is the pursuit of truth, not the winning of a debate. So, we'll continue to address Dr. Parker's principal argument, the concept of personhood in abortion.
No longer is it sufficient to say that a human being has intrinsic moral value. Instead, the conversation has shifted and we've come to making the distinction that only a human person has value. Indeed, Dr. Parker argues that a human being is not, in fact, a human person, saying at 33:20 "fetuses are human beings, but they're not people". Now, it should be obvious that this line of thought is incredibly dangerous. Historically, similar thinking contributed to the subjugation of African Americans in the antebellum south and the attempted extermination of the Jewish population in Nazi Germany. I am not implying that Dr. Parker is an advocate for slavery nor am I suggesting he is a Nazi, I am only emphasizing the fact that his distinction between a person and non-person has historically had devastating consequences, which also seems to be the case with abortion. Although Dr. Parker's distinction between a human being and a human person isn't new, the concept of personhood is a complicated and unclear philosophical topic. For instance, some consider personhood to include features, like: certain anatomical attributes, rationality, perceptions, emotions, the ability to feel pain, the ability to communicate, etc. However, it’s not clear why those specific features contribute to the “making of a person” nor why being merely a human being is insufficient for moral worth.
An Even Distribution of Reasoning:
As a sidebar, let me offer a little inside information regarding pro-life reasoning. For any attempt to try to justify abortion, one method to test if that justification is sound is to see if it can pass the “even distribution of reasoning” (EDR) test, you might call it. As a simple example, one might argue that justification for abortion during early gestation periods is morally permissible because a human fetus cannot feel pain. However, someone who is in a coma or under anesthesia cannot feel pain either, but we wouldn’t suggest that they do not have moral worth and, therefore, we are within our rights to rip them apart or stir up their brains while they are in that state. So, the “cannot feel pain” justification fails the EDR test.
The concept of personhood is a contentious subject for the same reason. If a born individual lacks any of those person-making features, does that make them less of a person? What about our coma patient example, they lack almost all those person-making features, does that make them less of a person or a person at all? I think the obvious answer is, no. So, the personhood justification doesn’t pass the EDR test either.
Not A Person? So, what?
If we were to concede to the distinction between a human being and human person and to the fact that a human fetus, early in gestation, lacks those person-making characteristics, what then? It doesn't seem obvious to me why we would value a human person more than a human being. One might argue that a human person can exercise their rationality, their ability to communicate, or any other person-making characteristic to bring about some other good, like building bridges or developing medicine. But all those same person-making capabilities are there within the human fetus too, just in potentiality. So, it doesn't seem clear to me why we should value an individual that can do good and not value the individual who has only the potential for good. As a thought experiment, imagine we have two individuals, one who is alert and strong and another individual who is in a coma. Obviously, one individual can do good, whereas the other has only the potential for good. But, we wouldn't say that the coma individual has no moral worth.
Lastly, but more pointedly, Dr. Parker's Christian faith should undergird his understanding of the value of the unborn. If Dr. Parker believes, like I do, that 1) humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) and therefore have intrinsic moral value and 2) the fetus is human, then 3) the fetus has intrinsic moral value and should not be dismissively destroyed. As Christians, we should continue to love and care for Dr. Parker, pray that God soften his heart and mind, that he repents of the evil he is committing and turns back to God's purpose for his life by honoring and protecting the most vulnerable of God's creation.