Timothy Brahm will be speaking on practical dialogue tips; the Equal Rights Argument, and understanding and responding to “My Body, My Choice” at University of Michigan on September 29, 2018.

Many conversations surrounding abortion focus on the personhood of the unborn, but the strongest pro-choice arguments grant the entire pro-life case that the unborn is a full human being. They go on to claim that abortion should still be legal because women have a right to control their own bodies. Timothy Brahm will explain how a comprehensive discussion about abortion needs to address more than just the humanity and personhood of the fetus, but also a woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy as it relates to pregnancy.

Speaker: Timothy Brahm, Director of Training, Equal Rights Institute

This event has been sponsored by Students for Life at the University of Michigan and the Leadership Institute

Date:September 29, 2018
Time:7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Event:Timothy Brahm: Understanding and Responding to “My Body, My Choice”
Sponsor: Students for Life at the University of Michigan
Venue: Rackham Graduate Building
Location:4th Floor Ampitheatre
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Public:Public

When Is Abortion Fetal Euthanasia In Disguise?

Image: Euthanasia needle and gavel

Bioethics is a broad and expanding field of ethical inquiry into questions concerning human life, its beginning and end, and its interaction with medicine and other technologies. When I began my formal study of bioethics, I noticed that many issues were interrelated, and the issue which had perhaps the most implications for the resolution of any other was the question of abortion. For example, a pro-life disability ethic is able to recognize that ableism begins prenatally, which prompts measures to protect fetal humans from discrimination on the basis of disability. It occurred to me only recently that, in at least some cases of abortion, the parents believe that they are aborting the child for its own good. That is to say, while abortion is the method by which the fetus is killed, the parents are really looking at the question through the lens of euthanasia.

There are many reasons why parents (or society) may believe that it would be better for a child if he or she wasn’t born. Often, the reason is a medical condition. There are cases in which a child will not survive birth, or in which the child will have a very brief and painful postnatal life. Another issue is that of prenatal diagnosis of disabilities, in which people argue that the child’s quality of life would be so low that it is hardly worth living.[1] At times, economic factors may come into play. At least in conversations on college campuses, the possibility of hardship by way of the foster system is a concern. A lot of these concerns are understandable; people want their children to avoid pain, on the whole, and to have happy lives. But the desire to avoid pain and promote happiness is a questionable justification for depriving someone of life.

These concerns about the quality of a fetal human’s life after birth animate two different lines of argument. I want to distinguish between how each argument functions and give a response to the primary issue underlying each one. In each case, I’m going to assume a scenario in which a child has a disease which lowers the chances of surviving through hospital discharge and which would likely cause the child to have some amount of pain for the rest of its life.