Should the state impose morality?

In today's issue of The Tech (not a particularly high-impact publication, but the very first online newspaper ever nonetheless), Keith Yost, a graduate student here at MIT, takes probably the most convoluted route to say absolutely nothing about the issue of abortion. He first spends more than a quarter of his space explaining why he doesn't usually like talking about social issues and why he is doing so now. He then addresses five main points: 1) Is an embryo human life? 2) What are its rights? 3) Does an embryo's right to life trump a mother's liberty? 4) Is abortion immoral? 5) Should abortion be illegal? I'll go through each of these points to try to understand his premise and where his logic fails, if indeed it does. All quotes are just a small fragment of what he's written, but which I feel sum up his position.

1) Is an embryo human life?

If human life is a yes/no binary sort of thing, then it’s fair to say that life begins at conception. ...Personally, I like to think of life as a fuzzier sort of thing and say that an embryo (or, for that matter, a coma patient) is human life only insofar as it has a chance of reaching cognizant adulthood.

Notice two things: first he recognizes that if human life is a binary sort of thing, then it begins at conception. The second is that he begins his argument with, "personally, I like to think...". The first is a very clear statement, the second is a very fuzzy statement. In the article he doesn't offer any arguments for why a person would believe one or the other - he merely states two different positions and the rational conclusions of such beliefs as to why one would think that way. He doesn't answer the question which he poses at all, because to answer the question must require the positing of some sort of argument.


Also notice the word cognizant. This is a crucial word because even though he doesn't give any reasons as to why cognizance is tied to life, it does come up later in his argument for rights. It is a belief tied very closely to those of Peter Singer.


2) What are its rights?

I consider rights to be inexorably tied to cognitive function. ...At the same time, the right to life is the most basic of human rights. We are loathe to take it away from anyone — a 6-month old child, even if it has fewer mental functions than an adult dog, still enjoys a level of protection in society that exceeds that of the animal. I’m inclined to believe that an embryo does indeed have a right to life.

In this section, Yost offers little in the way of explanation for why he thinks a certain way. He ties rights to cognitive function which apparently has to do with one's ability to "enjoy the liberty to make ones (sic) own decisions". Honestly, I'm not really sure what that means. I would question whether the necessity to make one's own decisions, much less the ability, is really something that's enjoyable, and I would question even more whether anybody really has the mental capacity to rationally make decisions for his or herself. I mean, we choose quite often to do some pretty stupid things. Even inconsequential decisions are rarely made well. Today I chose to wear jeans thinking that, since it's the end of October, it would be pretty chilly. Alas, it's one of those freak hot-and-humid days in late Fall. What gives? But it's not like I can blame the weather, I can only blame my poor insight for not looking at the weather forecast. And sure, I have the mental capacity to look up the weather forecast, but how many other decisions do I make which are beyond my ability to see the outcome? Should this limit my rights as a human being?


But he then goes on to qualify himself saying that the right to life is the most fundamental and basic of human rights, and that if we, as a society, don't deny it to 6-month-olds, then an embryo has a right to life as well. This is not an argument. It's statement of belief and the status quo. I don't think it requires much thinking to argue that life is the most basic of human rights, but at the same time, it does require a better argument to determine to whom it extends. Peter Singer comes to the exact opposite conclusion from a similar line of thinking - a conclusion that is more logically coherent. He considers killing a newborn baby not to be morally equivalent to killing an adult person. I say this is more logically coherent because if human rights have to do with cognitive function, then it doesn't make sense to say that all rights except this one decrease with a corresponding decrease in that function.


However, before moving on, just keep in mind that Yost ends with an affirmation that an embryo does indeed have a right to life.


3) Does an embryo's right to life trump a mother's liberty?

Rights are constantly in conflict. There is no cardinal ordering of human rights that decides when one trumps another. 

And so the contradiction continues. His first sentence is observant - rights are constantly in conflict. I have a right to walk across the street in a crosswalk, and the car has a right to cross the intersection without stopping since there is no stop sign. Neither action is illegal, but fortunately the states has said that when the two rights come in conflict, my right to walk across the street without getting run over trumps the car's right to cross the intersection without stopping. His second sentence is a direct contradiction of what he's written previously. When it comes to human rights, he says, there is no higher ordering which decides which one trumps another - there is no traffic cop other than that of the state. However, remember what he said in point 2? "...the right to life is the most basic of human rights." Yes, that's a superlative there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but certainly it would seem to me that the most basic of human rights, which he's already acknowledged an embryo has, ought to trump a less basic right, such as liberty, which he's already explained one only gains as one's cognition improves. That seems to be an ordering.


4) Is abortion immoral?


I'm not even going to quote this section. There's no definition of what morality is, and how abortion fits into that picture. One merely gets the sense that morality is a matter of feelings, and that given the opportunity to save a life, one should "feel personally compelled" to go through with giving birth rather than getting an abortion.


5) Should abortion be illegal?


Abortion is generally immoral. But it is not the job of the state to impose morality on its citizens.


I must ask Yost, "What is the job of the state if not to impose morality on its citizens?" I mean, sure, you can say that there are a few things that are not obviously related, such as defending the country against armed attack by outside forces. But the rest of it is laws and taxes. What are laws? Laws say what a citizen can and cannot do. Laws by necessity impose morality. After the sub-prime housing collapse due to shady financial dealings and all sorts of things which were most likely 100% legal at the time, how many people were outside Congress demanding that Congress not impose its morality on Wall Street and protect the fat cats' right to immoral practices? Not many. Even my previous example of cars yielding to pedestrians is a form of morality: specifically that morality that says society should protect those who are the most vulnerable - which is a Biblical principle. In the area of life, the state imposes morality each and every second of every day. It is always 100% illegal for me to commit murder, and if I were to do so, I can be sure of judgment and sentencing.


To sum up, this article is a textbook case in incoherence and contradiction. It's a good thing I do not believe that Mr. Yost's rights are inexorably tied to his cognitive function.