As a Pro-Lifer Should I Take My Friend to an Abortion Clinic?

Yesterday, I was asked if I, as a pro-lifer, would drive a friend to an abortion clinic. Or whether I'd be willing to lose a friend over this. I'd never thought about it, but immediately, two questions crossed my mind: first, do I have a duty as a friend to take them to the clinic? Second, if I took her isn't that a form of approval and wouldn't that go against my belief that abortion is wrong?

Now, as a friend, I'm under certain obligations to not harm my friend, gossip about them, steal their car, etc. But I'm under no duty to comply to any of my friend's requests, whatever they may be. So I don't have to pick them up from their late night escapade or take them to the grocery store; whatever my friend asks, I'm not obligated to do it. Of course, if I wanted to, I can—though that should only be when there is no moral conflict or when the request is not immoral. There are cases where the requests are not in moral conflict but are immoral. Imagine you're an Aryan back in 1940 Germany. You know exactly what is going on in the concentration camps: people are being gassed by the 1000s. And you're completely against the Nazis and the concentration camps. One day, your friend, Bitler, an SS officer, shows up at the door asking you to drive him and a 14-year-old Jewish girl to the camp. Bitler tells you that the girl will be gassed within an hour of arriving at the camp--so, no need to worry about her suffering due to starvation, fatigue, or diseases. And once the girl is dead, then you and Bitler can go home.

What should you do? The answer is you shouldn't drive Bitler to the camp. You should instead try to convince him of the immorality of his actions. Or you can help the girl escape. None of them is mutually exclusive. There is no moral conflict between helping your friend and helping your friend kill another human being. The right thing to do, ipso facto, is not to drive him to the camp in order to save the girl's life. Bilter's request is immoral, hence any submission on your part will make you guilty of the 14-year-old girl's death. And in one sense, if you drove to the camp, you would be approving of the Nazi's actions and it would go against your belief that the camps are committing wrongful actions daily. It would be a different situation if you didn't have knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, but you do.

And I bet most people would be willing to lose Bitler as a friend. Some might even think that it's impossible to remain friends with someone who willingly subjects himself into carrying out evil acts.

Similarly, then, in the case of driving your friend to an abortion clinic, there is no moral conflict between that of helping your friend and that of helping your friend kill another human if the foetus at whatever stage is an innocent human being. There's a conflict only if the two options are morally equivalent, which they aren't.

The fact is at conception a new organism is created, which is wholly distinct from the sperm and egg. And there's difficulty in a drawing line between what is human and what is not from conception till death by old age. Even with the consideration of the primitive streak appearing around 14 days after conception, it cannot be established that the embryo is not human. More specifically, it cannot be shown that there is not an individual human being: that what is born nine months later is the same one that has developed over the nine months. So since embryos are members of the species homo sapiens whose paradigmatic members are capable of free will and of purposely pursuing the good given that they are allowed to develop or sober-up, they have a right to life. Hence, abortion is immoral because it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. The right thing to do is not take my friend to the abortion clinic. Her request--to be driven to the clinic to have an abortion--is wrong, to begin with.

But suppose someone says, as if often by feminists of all stripes, that there's a moral conflict between my friend's right to her body and the foetus' right to life. And that her right to control her body outweighs the foetus' rights. Thus, it is permissible to abort the foetus even if granted that it was an innocent human being. Well, for one thing, the foetus is not one of my friend's bodily parts like her heart or stomach. It is a distinct living human organism. So she can't abort solely by appealing to her right to do as she pleases with her body since the foetus is not a bodily part. You can't kill an infant just because you're currently holding her at this moment. That would be murder. But what if my friend's reason was that the foetus was an aggressor, could she kill it? No, not any more than Bilter can kill the girl because he has to feed her once a day and she takes up space in the car. It is never permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human being under any circumstances at any point of development.

So, yesterday, what my answer should have been was that I wouldn't take my friend to the abortion clinic any more than I would help Bitler take the life of a 14-year-old Jewish girl. I'd be willing to lose a friend over this, but I wouldn't stop trying to convince her that her action is wrong.

What do you think? Do you agree?

Image via pexel