The trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell has only recently received the attention one would expect in our sensationalist, media-driven society. In addition to charges of drug pushing, Gosnell stands accused of killing one woman and seven fetuses that were born alive during abortion procedures. During his career, Gosnell performed around 1,000 abortions per year in poorly-run, unsanitary clinics. His clinic in Philadelphia has been described by prosecutors as a “house of horror.” That sentiment has been widely seconded by those who have read the details of Gosnell’s alleged actions.
Some of those outraged and horrified by the Gosnell case have moral principles that are not informed by religious concerns. Like the famous atheist journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, many of the non-religious have “secular” reasons for opposing abortion. The “pro-life” movement has long been associated with religion, particularly Christianity, while secularism is usually associated with “pro-choice” viewpoints. Secularism, however is widely connected to humanism, a position that definitely includes a “pro-life” element. If one can be “pro-life” for human beings after birth, it would seem consistent for one to be “pro-life” for human beings before birth as well.
To determine the morality of killing or abortion without reference to religion, we must first have a good reason for believing that killing a human being is morally wrong. A simple way to discover the morality or immorality of an act is to determine what the injurious aspects of an act may be. For example, this “wrongness-based” account would assert that stealing is a “wrong” act because it deprives a person of property that was justly earned. The “wrong-making” aspect of torture is that it causes physical and psychological pain to a fellow creature.
The essential harm caused by killing is deprivation of the victim’s future. We value our futures, which is why we believe that an “untimely” death is particularly tragic; the prematureness of that death deprives the victim of a future that otherwise would have been realized.
The principle of reciprocity is the only standard necessary to determine the morality of the act. At a minimum, what’s required is that an individual does not treat others in a way in which she would not wish to be treated. Since we do not want to be deprived of our futures, it is immoral to deprive other human beings of their futures.
The future of a human embryo is, obviously, like ours. That future must be as valuable as our futures. Since abortion deprives the embryo of its future, abortion must be as morally wrong as killing any other human being. Now, there might be contexts in which abortion is morally permissible. If, for example, the mother’s life would be at extreme risk if she carried a pregnancy to term, it would seem plausible that she should be able to obtain an abortion. If we believe that one can kill in self-defense, then abortion in self-defense should be permissible as well. This does not change the fact that abortion is morally equivalent to killing any other human being. I would not sleep well for some time if I were to kill in self-defense; I doubt few people could.
The principle of reciprocity can be found in almost every culture during every age. One can cite a wide variety of reasons for following this principle: “God said to,” “Confucius said,” et cetera. Alternatively, a person might follow the principle of reciprocity because she has found that doing so leads to the most emotionally and spiritually rewarding results. Regardless of the reason, the commonality of this principle ensures that a wrongness-based approach to moral questions is valid for most people.
One can be “pro-life” without recourse to religious principles, challenging any person, religious or secular, who is not “pro-life” toward the unborn. Even the staunchest “pro-choice” advocates are horrified by Gosnell’s alleged acts. The shared emotion generated by the Gosnell case, combined with the moral principles that both secular and religious people share, demonstrate that there is still a chance for a meaningful dialogue about abortion.