Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will blog a little on the subject of abortion. He decided to do so because of some reflections on the recent Smallholder post on this topic; as well as Ally’s post.

NB to Ally: We like you too. The Smallholder suggested recently that your site be added to the blogroll. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure why he hadn’t added it sooner as he’s read your site a bit through links from Bill and Keith. That said, your Maximum Leader - being a jealous Maximum Leader - isn’t sure if you love all of us here equally. He suspects the Smallholder is the apple of your blogging eye here on Nakedvillainy.

First off your Maximum Leader must respectfully disagree with a basic premise of the Smallholder’s argument. You do not have to assume that life begins at conception or not. It does not have to be a clear-cut position. You can apply a number of different criteria when defining human life. There are a number of questions that should be posed before accepting the premise that this issue is defined by one (or not-one) position.

Let’s start to examine some of the questions. For the sake of this medium (which favours shorter posts) let us focus on just two questions. What are the characteristics or traits of a human? What constitutes life?

Perhaps the single biggest trait that defines a human nature is abstract reasoning. Subsets of abstract reasoning include (but certainly aren’t limited to) language skills, ethical and moral decision making, and the ability to conceptualize and create complex tools or machines. It is not uncommon to lament or feel sad for someone who through age, disability, or accident loses some or all of their ability to utilize their abstract reasoning capabilities. Often we would ask ourselves what sort of quality of life these people might have. And to an extent we recognize that they are now “different” from other “normal” humans. Different, and perhaps deserving of different treatment vis a vis other humans.

As for defining life, probably the biggest argument in this area is related to the concept of viability outside the womb. We all recognize that there is a point at which a fetus’ lungs, heart, brain, and such are well developed enough that if it were to be removed from the woman’s womb, it could live.

But, your Maximum Leader will posit for you, this is a rather broadly defined concept of viability. Indeed, the fetus just described would spend weeks or months in an intensive care unit at a hospital recieving constant attention. A reasonable person ca conclude that this is not really viability. Especially since, thanks to advances in medicine and technology, the point at which a fetus can survive outside a woman’s womb keeps getting pushed back by days and weeks.

So what is real viability? Perhaps real viability is when a child can at least begin to fend for themselves. Perhaps it comes at a point at which the child has some mobility, is able to grab food and place it in its mouth. For the sake of argument, your Maximum Leader will posit that viability is survival outside the womb without mechanical or medical assistance.

So, where does this bring us? It brings us to a point at which a person can make a reasonable determination that until a child has attained some level of abstract reasoning and is viable (without intervention) outside the womb it really doesn’t posess the traits of a human being.

And not posessing those traits, why would a woman not be able to terminate the non-human?

Of course, by these premises a woman would also be able to commit what is now labeled infanticide. By these premises, a child would not be entitled to protection as a human being until they were probably 3-6 months old.

Your Maximum Leader makes this argument to show that in fact it isn’t so clear cut when you look at it a little differently.

Your Maximum Leader recognizes that there is a “common sense” argument to be made against the premises he laid out here. But he entreats you all to think about all of the legal standards under which we currently live that wouldn’t pass a “common sense” muster - but do pass a “logical” standard.

What makes the abortion issue so tricky is that there is no single point in a pregnancy at which a reasonable person can say, “Okay, now it is a human baby.” Thanks to medical advances, babies that would have died from premature birth only a few years ago will now live normal lives. It used to be that reaching the 35/36 weeks milestone in a pregnancy was the point at which one could assume you had a baby that was ready to be born. Now there are babies born at 20 some weeks who - with the help of specialized equipment and drugs - will live and grow up normal.

This is part of what makes the issue tricky. When Roe v. Wade was written, second trimester fetuses were not viable. Therefore they could be aborted. Now they are viable. But they can still be aborted. Is there a point a few decades hence when a mother’s womb will be completely unnessesary? What then?

Your Maximum Leader has believed for many years that human life begins at conception. He has believed this because it just didn’t make sense to him for life to begin at any other point.

As for how abortion figures into your Maximum Leader’s politics, it is not near the top of his list on items that require immediate attention. Would your Maximum Leader like to see Roe overturned? Yes he would. But his reasons aren’t the ones you might think. Your Maximum Leader would prefer that States, or smaller local jurisdictions, make regulations (or not make regulations - be that as it may) concerning the practice of abortion. As is his wont, your Maximum Leader generally prefers that decisions be made by people on a level where they can interact more with the process. (Which is another subject for a different time altogether.)

There is one other point on which your Maximum Leader will differ with the Smallholder. Although he believes life begins at conception, he does believe there is one justifiable reason for aborting a child. To save the life of the mother.

There is one instance that really crystalized this exception in his mind. A few years ago, a friend of your Maximum Leader got pregnant. She was happily married and looking forward to raising a family. As she moved through the various tests that women get in the early stages of pregnancy she and her doctors discovered something was very wrong. Tests revealed that while her baby was fine, she had a very malignant rapidly-spreading case of cancer. She was told that immediate radical cancer treatment was required to sto the cancer and hopefully save her life. But, chemotherapy and radiation, and drugs would certainly kill the baby. She opted to wait and deliver her child and then start treatment. Seven months after son was born she died. She was 33.

This woman’s death caused your Maximum Leader to think a lot about abortion and how one would have saved his friend’s life. He came to believe that in a case where the pregnancy itself, or some other factor left untreated, would likely kill the mother having an abortion was acceptable. He likens this stance to a self-defence argument. If a woman was threatened in her home by some assailant he supports her right to attack - and perhaps kill - the assailant. Although the analogy is clumsy, the baby may be an assailant. But that is a choice for the mother to make. She can view the baby as an assailant, or she can choose another path.

Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure what he would or could have said or suggested to his friend while she was taking her decision. He has often felt it was best that he didn’t learn of what was going on until it was done. He thinks it was best because he might have suggested that she save herself.

And that would have made the path Ashley chose that much harder.

Carry on.