When discussing abortion the concept of rights gets especially abused, and noisy side issues crowd out the key issue: Is a fetus human life?
The pro-abortion people throw around euphemisms like "choice," but particularly cowardly are evasions that dismiss the issue by impugning the character of those who hold the anti-abortion position. Worst of all is when someone cites a poll, as if enough of us voting to kill Hollywood stars for sport would make it ok...
Another troubling line of argumentation is "the life of the mother," which any medical doctor can tell you is a one-in-a-million given today's medical technology, and it is highly contingent given the variance in the technological advancement of the medical equipment available at different geographical locations.
Human Beings are Superior to Beasts
(I can't believe I actually have to make this argument... But here goes...)
The other troublesome aspect is that some attempt to conflate all life, human, animal and plant. They are clearly not equal.
Monkeys are not human, although it's cute when one smokes a pipe in a tv commercial, and the sight of dogs shooting pool is amusing, but it's only an artistic fantasy. Animal behavior is determined by instinct and rote conditioning; human beings reason, philosophize, ask questions and engage in what philosophers call transcendental activities. We possess "an awareness of and a desire for unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being." Put more simply, how many libraries have baboons built? We are complex beings, not bound by "algorithmically finite structures." (Spitzer, Robert J.)
I'm Anti-House Fire, But I Support the Arsonist's Right to Torch the Place...
My all-time favorite is "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice." So you're anti house fire, but you support the arsonist's right to torch the place... It's not logical. You either believe abortion is morally ok (pro-abortion), or you do not (anti-abortion). You can't have it both ways. You can mumble out of the side of your mouth about the sanctity of life as the abortion counter competes with the debt clock, but whoever is not against it is for it.
The First Question: Is it Life?
The pro-abortion people throw around euphemisms like "choice," but particularly cowardly are evasions that dismiss the issue by impugning the character of those who hold the anti-abortion position. Worst of all is when someone cites a poll, as if enough of us voting to kill Hollywood stars for sport would make it ok...
Another troubling line of argumentation is "the life of the mother," which any medical doctor can tell you is a one-in-a-million given today's medical technology, and it is highly contingent given the variance in the technological advancement of the medical equipment available at different geographical locations.
Human Beings are Superior to Beasts
(I can't believe I actually have to make this argument... But here goes...)
The other troublesome aspect is that some attempt to conflate all life, human, animal and plant. They are clearly not equal.
Monkeys are not human, although it's cute when one smokes a pipe in a tv commercial, and the sight of dogs shooting pool is amusing, but it's only an artistic fantasy. Animal behavior is determined by instinct and rote conditioning; human beings reason, philosophize, ask questions and engage in what philosophers call transcendental activities. We possess "an awareness of and a desire for unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being." Put more simply, how many libraries have baboons built? We are complex beings, not bound by "algorithmically finite structures." (Spitzer, Robert J.)
I'm Anti-House Fire, But I Support the Arsonist's Right to Torch the Place...
My all-time favorite is "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice." So you're anti house fire, but you support the arsonist's right to torch the place... It's not logical. You either believe abortion is morally ok (pro-abortion), or you do not (anti-abortion). You can't have it both ways. You can mumble out of the side of your mouth about the sanctity of life as the abortion counter competes with the debt clock, but whoever is not against it is for it.
The First Question: Is it Life?
The root of the issue is, "is a fetus a human being?" Is it a Life? A person? Before Roe v Wade, these words were synonymous and they all share a common etymology, with each word referring to the others in dictionary definitions.
So before proceeding to the question of whether it's OK to snuff it, when we can snuff it, and who is entitled to snuff it, we first have to define it. Is it life? Yes or no. It can't be two things at once.
If No...
So before proceeding to the question of whether it's OK to snuff it, when we can snuff it, and who is entitled to snuff it, we first have to define it. Is it life? Yes or no. It can't be two things at once.
If No...
Is it life, yes or no? If no, then have a ball and snuff the wad of tissue before she can get her cute little baby hands on a social security card.
If the being inside the mother is not life, then why jump through the justification hoops? Just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience. So at the root, even all but the most stone-cold pro-abortion people know it is taking a life, even though the act may be deemed legal. I can at least accept that distinction, with the caveat that what is legal is not necessarily moral.
If Yes...
If yes, it becomes more complex, which is why so many people fudge on the question, saying "yeah, it's life," but them damn this small life by demeaning it as just a blastocyst, embryo, zygote, non-viable life form, etc. All of these are distinctions without a difference, because all of these medically-defined entities proceed from human procreation and can be classified as either living or dead.
We argue over euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and other legal actions that result in the taking of a human life. I believe that is where abortion belongs. It's a life. The question now becomes, how, when, why and who may legally take it? Let's at least begin the debate by banishing the weasel words and honestly facing unpleasant facts.
If the being inside the mother is not life, then why jump through the justification hoops? Just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience. So at the root, even all but the most stone-cold pro-abortion people know it is taking a life, even though the act may be deemed legal. I can at least accept that distinction, with the caveat that what is legal is not necessarily moral.
If Yes...
If yes, it becomes more complex, which is why so many people fudge on the question, saying "yeah, it's life," but them damn this small life by demeaning it as just a blastocyst, embryo, zygote, non-viable life form, etc. All of these are distinctions without a difference, because all of these medically-defined entities proceed from human procreation and can be classified as either living or dead.
We argue over euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and other legal actions that result in the taking of a human life. I believe that is where abortion belongs. It's a life. The question now becomes, how, when, why and who may legally take it? Let's at least begin the debate by banishing the weasel words and honestly facing unpleasant facts.
Even then, when we say this particular action is OK but that one is not, we construct a slippery slope, where abortion for the right reason is ok, but wrong for gender selection:
* - For a much better more intelligent treatment of this issue, and some great back and forth in the thread, see Why There's no Point to Arguing about Abortion
So we really shouldn’t be a bit surprised if this particular slippery slope leads from guilt-free annual terminations – three for two, anybody? – to a “gender-balancing” service, which helps you plan the perfect family by vacuuming away infants of the wrong sex. There is a moral coarsening here that should concern us all. How desensitised have we become when an act of life or death – literally – is used as a tool to satisfy a curious desire to have one that you can dress in blue, as well as pink? (Allison Pearson-Gendercide)That was not written by a moralizing rightwing Christian fundamentalist from Alabama, but rather by a liberal British columnist who two paragraphs earlier forthrightly declared "I support abortion."
* - For a much better more intelligent treatment of this issue, and some great back and forth in the thread, see Why There's no Point to Arguing about Abortion
