The Abortion Experts

The topic of abortion is an incredibly polarizing issue, dividing the country in an almost perfect split.  Neither side has quite the overwhelming majority it thinks and claims to have, nor is either side made up of a single demographic.  Men, women, all different races, all fall onto one side or another as opposing or supporting the eradication of abortion from public access.  Arguments surrounding abortion often revolve around an appeal to authority (“the medical/scientific experts say x, the Bible/faith elders say y, etc.”).  One of the most interesting things about this issue, though, is that it really showcases the direct link between science and metaphysics, between philosophy and the physical world.  An appeal to the experts in the case of abortion is really an appeal scientists, medical professionals, philosophers, and theologians all at the same time.  

Though the appeal to authority in and of itself is a logical fallacy (just because someone is a medical doctor does not mean they are not an idiot), there is great merit in looking to the experts of a field to see what the truth is.  Because of this, appeals to authority can sometimes work logically, providing that authority remains within its area of competence.  What I mean by this is that a geologist is the subject matter expert of rock formations, but not necessarily air quality.  If I thought I had found a velociraptor egg, I would go to the geologist.  If, however, a train carrying toxic chemicals jumps its tracks near my home and I am concerned that I might inhale toxic fumes, I would seek the advice of an air quality specialist.  There is no guarantee that either of these “experts” will actually provide me with reliable information; in fact, if they were to out and out lie to me about this, I would not necessarily even know the difference - I would continue to research to my own, limited capacity to see if what they tell me makes sense in the larger scientific community.  There is one thing I am almost guaranteed, though: if a geologist assures me on his authority as a geologist that the air near my home is safe, there is a good chance I am dealing with an egoist (or at least an idiot who does not know the extent of his own studies).  I would be foolish to accept his words as if he were as competent in air quality as he was in rock formations.  He might have a better sense of the air than I, but he just as well could be guessing, the same as I.  In short, he is an expert in rocks and rocks alone.  In air quality, my geologist is another bystander, and not an expert.

Experts must stay within their areas of competence, if their own credibility is to be upheld.  Thus, when the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community declares a fetus to be alive (as indeed they do), we can accept this with ready minds as well within their area of competence.  Something is either alive or it is not, and there are objective markers indicating unique life.  Likewise, when the consensus of the scientific community asserts that the fetus is human life, we acknowledge their competence: human life has human DNA, physically detectable and discernible as distinct from the mother’s DNA.  And besides: life begotten can only be of like substance as life begetting.  In similar fashion, all indicators of the fetus’ development (heartbeat, finger formation, reaction to voices, pain, etc.) are all objective and measurable realities, well within the competence of the scientific professionals.

There is much left to the competence of the scientific community as regards to a human fetus.  What is solidly outside their area of expertise, though, is the fields of morality, rights, personhood, and human dignity.  The experts in these areas are really the ethicists, philosophers, and theologians.  Thus, when a legislator, politician, medical professional, or random citizen asserts that the fetus has no right to impose itself on the bodily autonomy of the mother, they speak outside of their own realm of competence.  When we are told from these same groups that a fetus is not a human being (denoting personhood), these groups really are engaging in dangerous speculation well outside of their own ability to opine.  When the conclusion that it is moral to kill this human life on the basis of hierarchy of rights, convenience, freedom, or absence of fetal personhood is promoted from anyone besides the philosophical and theological communities, such conclusions are based on the opinions of the laity and not the experts.  And, for the record, the general (though not unanimous) consensus among the experts concerning abortion is that it is immoral.  The most fundamental right in the world is the right to exist.  This right trumps all other rights, because without this right no other goods exist.

Often, I hear the phrase “trust the experts” when it comes to the abortion conversation.  I wholeheartedly agree: listen to the experts as to when life begins, how the child is formed, and how to keep the child alive.  In addition, we must listen to the experts as to whether abortion is moral and justifiable.  And the experts in this field declare it not permissible.