Tomlinson's false dilemma: Or, how not to attack the pro-life position
Addressing the "what if you have to choose between a vial of embryos and child" objection
Above: Patrick S. Tomlinson, biding his time.
An objection has been making the rounds in recent years, casting a shadow upon the convictions of Catholics and their compatriots who champion the pro-life cause.1 It presents these Catholics with a dilemma—a situation that engenders a sense of unease—ultimately leading some of them to question their stance against abortion. It is therefore instructive to look at a popular example of this objection, affording it a fair hearing while explaining why it should not worry pro-lifers at all.
We begin with a news piece, which informs us that “the core argument against abortion” faces a formidable adversary in the form of tweets by science fiction writer Pat Tomlinson. What sort of tweeting could be up to the task?
Mr. Tomlinson never identifies the pro-life argument he seeks to destroy, opting instead to put the reader in a quandary. Picture a scene in a clinic besieged by a deadly fire. Confronted with an inevitable choice, you must decide to rescue either a five-year-old child in one room or a container of viable human embryos in another, with the cruel stipulation that both cannot be saved.
This scenario, he says, “absolutely eviscerates” anti-abortion arguments. How so? According to a plausible interpretation, it shows that pro-lifers are inconsistent. Deep down, in their heart of hearts, they lean toward the salvation of the five-year-old, thus betraying an inherent valuation of born children over embryos. This contradicts their outward position of assigning equal worth to embryos. If life truly begins at conception, then both are of equal value. Why then do we choose the child?
Mr. Tomlinson claims that he “has never had an honest response from people opposed to abortion”, indicating that pro-lifers dishonestly say they would save the embryos—since to say otherwise would falsify their belief in the inherent value of the unborn. Their pro-life position commits them (allegedly) to saving the embryos over the child and they pretend that doing so is the right choice, even though they know it isn’t.
If Mr. Tomlinson’s claim is true, perhaps it is because he has only spoken with pro-lifers who do not know their position or how to think on their feet. For, as an attack against the pro-life position or argument for abortion, his objection fails miserably.
First, his thought experiment is a red herring. The scenario bears no semblance to abortion and therefore implies nothing about the moral justification thereof. In the scenario, you are forced to choose whom to save, not whom to kill, whereas abortion just is the deliberate, unforced killing of an unborn child. For the sake of argument, suppose that life does not begin at conception, or that embryos do not merit the same treatment or care as born children. What follows from that? It certainly does not follow that life begins after birth or that abortion is morally justified! Abortion may still be wrong even if life begins after conception. The scenario is mere smoke and mirrors. To justify when it is permissible to kill, the pro-abortionist still needs, at the very least, to specify when personhood begins.
Second, Mr. Tomlinson relies on a false assumption, namely, that when forced to choose between two alternatives, the chosen option reflects what you value the most. This assumption undergirds his charge of inconsistency; it is why he thinks pro-lifers are committed to saving the embryo over the child. But it has the unfortunate property of being false. Choices between competing goods, such as which person to save when you cannot save everyone, must involve considerations beyond the intrinsic value of human life. Consequently, choosing the child does not by itself indicate that it has more inherent value than the unchosen embryos.
Consider, for example, a scenario where you must choose between saving a ten-year-old and a one-year-old from a fire. Your decision must consider factors beyond the intrinsic value of life, since each child holds equal value. The choice may hinge on logistical considerations, proximity to the exit, perceived chances of escape, and so forth. Analogously, Mr. Tomlinson's scenario involves multifaceted considerations, none of which correlate with assigning greater value to one life over another. In his scenario, most people would save the five-year-old because they can choose only one and the five-year-old would suffer more than the embryos in the fire, has more to lose because of being older, etc. Such a choice, agonizing though it may be, cannot be decided by weighing the inherent value of one child against the other.
Someone might object that, if life truly begins at conception, then the quantity of embryos would outweigh the value of a single child. This objection also withers upon scrutiny, especially given the imperative to save only one. Imagine a choice is between saving your own child or ten children in another room, with no possibility of rescuing both. You would likely be inclined to save your own child, simply because he’s yours, and your choice would have nothing to do with the value of the other ten children; it certainly would not imply that we could kill them like abortion does the unborn. Your decision transcends a mere numerical calculus and remains detached from any comparison of intrinsic worth.
We can now see that Mr. Tomlinson's pivotal assumption is false; and down with it goes his rhetorical attempt at demolishing the internal consistency of the pro-life position.
The case against abortion, by contrast, is as simple as it is true. Infants are entitled to our care and protection; and no difference between infants and the unborn justifies treating the latter with less care and protection than we treat the former. Hence, justice calls upon us to extend the same care and protection to the unborn. Mr. Tomlinson’s twitter storm, despite its viral fanfare, does nothing to prove otherwise.
For the purposes of this essay, the pro-life position is just the view that abortion is morally wrong.