I’m calling for a moratorium on talking about “innocent life” in the context of abortion. Here’s why. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong–intrinsically wrong–because the taking of innocent life is always wrong. But “innocent” in that sentence does not mean what “innocent” means in everyday speech, which is the context in which talk about defending or attacking “innocent life” usually occurs.
Saying that abortion is the taking of innocent life does not mean that the fetus is innocent in a “holistic” way–in the way that a gossip, or a person with a record of criminal convictions, or a cheater, or a habitual liar, is not. It means that the fetus is “formally innocent” solely with respect to the situation that would seem to warrant the taking of its life by another person. “Innocent” means that the fetus is not a “formally unjust aggressor.”
“Formal innocence” is the criterion the Church uses to distinguish between killing that is self-defense and killing that is murder. If you kill a nasty, otherwise terrible and depraved person who nonetheless is not attacking you unjustly, you’ve committed murder. As much as that person sucks, he or she is formally innocent with respect to the reason you killed him or her.
And indeed, according to official teaching, a fetus can’t be anything but formally innocent, since it is not doing anything (or rather, not deliberately doing anything). It is just there, being itself.
This brings up three important points.
First, it is for this reason that some moral theologians (including, I think, Cathy Kaveny on the Commonweal blog) have argued that the fetus could be thought of in some situations (such as the Phoenix case) as a materially unjust aggressor. It does not intend to attack the mother’s body in an unjust way, but it nonetheless is doing just that, for reasons out of its control. Thus the fetus would be in the same category as the starving but insane man who lunges at your head with a knife because he is convinced it’s actually a melon that sits atop your shoulders. Killing such a person could be said to constitute self-defense.
Second, and of more interest to me in this post, is that formal innocence is not usually what we mean when we talk about a fetus being innocent. Rather, we mean innocent in the sentimental way that we call adorable animals and babies innocent (Augustine notwithstanding). We mean they are helpless, pitiable, and not [yet] mean beings who can insult us or harm us–and how could you be so cold-hearted that you’d kill such a creature? This kind of rhetoric automatically juxtaposes the innocent fetus with other kinds of people whom society (and a large portion of the pro-life demographic, judging from voting statistics) does not usually call innocent and finds generally threatening or disgusting: enemy soldiers, death row inmates, and worst of all in this discourse, the women who seek abortions in the first place. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the pro-life movement is often criticized for failing to care about just this kind of life outside the womb.
When we let our language about abortion slip between technical moral vocabulary and common sense ways of talking, we are left with the insidious implication that what’s at stake in the debate over abortion is the embodiment of innocence versus the embodiment of guilt:
-the poor, innocent, pure fetus versus a slutty, selfish woman who “should have known better,”
-or an innocent, harmless fetus versus a convict who’s “given up his right to live,”
-or an innocent, tranquil fetus versus a terrorist or civilians who have to become “collateral damage” because of the problem of terrorism.
When this happens, the fetus truly becomes a “fetish,” in Eugene McCarraher’s words.
Third, whether we intend it or not, calls to defend “the innocent fetus” can quickly morph into calls to defend the fetus because it is innocent. Now talk about bad theology: implying that human beings have a “right” to life that can be forfeited such that they no longer “deserve” it. As if it were possible for a person to “deserve” life in the first place! Come on! This is Grace 101, whether you are protestant or Catholic. If our moral theology is going to be truly Christian, we ought to take a cue from the Christ who apparently was interested in saving life that specifically wasn’t innocent.