There's been some posting over at Baude's Blog recently about abortion, and I thought I'd include my own two cents.

I have moral problems with abortion. Will compares the fetus to a parasite, which, though it's a biologically accurate comparison, I think, ignores the fact that a fetus may become a human. Maybe I'm a idealist, but I see a difference between a tapeworm and a fetus. And I've read comparisons between a fetus and a five-year-old child. I concur that there is a huge difference (and I'm thinking about self-awareness here) between a 6 week fetus and a five-year-old child. But what about between a seven or eight month fetus (that can survive outside its mother's womb) and an infant? Why do we as a society send a women to jail for killing her newly born baby, when, if she had gone to the doctor the day before, she could have killed it legally?

The current line we draw between infanticide and abortion seems just as arbitrary as any other line, particularly when partial birth abortion involves inducing labor and essentially killing the baby when it comes out.

The current question religiously involves when the fetus has a soul. Of course the Catholic Church's position is when the fetus is a seperate sperm and egg, which I find ridiculous and only fit for an age when underpopulation rather than overpopulation is a problem. However, this position has not been uniformly held by the Church. In fact, Augustine said that a baby only had a soul when it was able to move around in the woman's stomach (well, he used different words, and for that matter, he wrote in Latin, but that was the gist. This would legitimate birth control and early-term abortions, but it seems a completely arbitrary line to draw.

I tried to apply the principle of the double effect to abortion. That is, one does a morally neutral act with good and bad consequences. If the good consequences outweigh the bad ones (what does this mean? Probably that it's up to an individual to use his or her judgement to decide), than the act is not a sin. The problem is that I don't see abortion as a morally neutral act, though I think the good consequences probably outweigh the bad ones. If one applies this principle to birth control though (which i do see as a morally neutral act. Yes, I know I'm probably going to hell), then I think that this morally legitimates using birth control, no matter what Paul VI said. I'd say he can bite me, but then I'd definitely be going to hell. Plus he's dead.

My view on the law is that the government should be able to ban late-term abortions. If the fetus could survive outside the womb, than I see abortion as murder. Call it the third trimester to be safe. Before this point, I think the right to privacy applies and it is the pregnant woman's right to decide.

Do I see abortion as morally wrong? Probably. I don't think I could have an abortion, but I've never been in a situation where it seems the only way out. So I can't really say I would never have one. And I see early-term abortions as a moral matter, not a legal matter, so I don't think the government should legislate about them. Do I think abortion is good for society? Probably, but I don't think that justifies it. One could argue that shooting all the Fox executives before Married by America was produced would have been good for society, but that doesn't mean it should be legal, nor does it make the action morally right.

Ultimately, I see abortion as a moral matter, not a legal one. I think each woman should decide whether she can square having an abortion with her own ethical code. If she can, I don't think the law should stop her. I don't approve of the government trying to force my morals on anyone else.

A few disclaimers: I know my line is as arbitrary as anyone else's. I just happen to like it, that's all. I know very little about the relevant law, so this is more or less from a common sense, with some recourse to Catholic theology, position. And please don't email me or post comments about what a terrible person I am. If you wish to make well-reasoned and logical comments about why you disagree with my position, I'd love to read them. My position on this issue is hardly set in stone, but I'm not going to change my mind because of some poorly-spelled, hate-filled missive about how morally degenerate I am.