A "eureka" moment for me on the issue of abortion came on a high school trip to a museum. I sat with a good friend who shared my interest in model rocketry, and somehow our conversation turned to Roe v. Wade. We disagreed on the topic, and I carefully laid out the Pro-Life arguments that I had found so convincing. His response? He actually agreed with me, but "It is a woman's right to choose." OK. I laid out an argument for why I felt that particular argument was specious. He agreed 100%. But "It is a woman's right to choose." We spent the whole 3 hour trip having a "discussion" where he would not answer any of my points with a reasoned, logical, or even emotional response. It was simply the mantra "It is a woman's right to choose" with literally no intellectual backing.
This post on Digg.Com has the same ring to me, and reminds me that for much of the abortion argument while the Pro-Choice side accuses the Pro-Life side of being "ignorant and unreasoning", they themselves are not interested in a dialogue. Maybe it is the radicalism that has emerged on both sides, maybe it is the rise of political correctness, or maybe it is something I truly am not seeing. But I am still waiting for a GOOD Pro-Choice argument based on solid philosophical ground. I understand the concerns about rape/incest/life-of-mother. But most Pro-Lifers are willing to compromise on this. In fact, my own Pro-Life position is that this is a morality issue that should be decided on the STATE level and NOT the Federal level.
Is there any hope for a discussion on Abortion instead of an endless stream of invective and recrimination?
I think that the problem is that pro-choice people believe that they have the ultimate high-ground in protecting a woman's right to choose. There is nothing higher than protecting free-will. Anybody who has studied philosophy understands this isn't the case, but for the pro-choice movement it is. So, even though you lay out a very eloquent and logical defense, they think that the right to choose trumps it. Until this particular perspective changes there will be no discussion on the issue.
YanıtlaSilI have to disagree with Sean. It's true that pro-choices often believe they have the ultimate high ground, but that is at least as true of pro-lifers.
YanıtlaSilI think part of the problem is mutual incomprehension now. Without months of learning to think differently, both sides are simply incapable of understanding the arguements of their opponents. It is not that your friend was refusing to tackle your arguments, but that he couldn't even recognise them as arguments - and was probably equally frustrated that you couldn't understand his. If you both approach from different starting points, explaining your route will not help you reach a common destination.
One of my least-liked distractions is how the conversations always turn time and again to the subject of 'life' - what is alive, when does life begin, etc. I view all this as a big red herring. Tapeworms are alive too - life alone doesn't mean something is sacred and needs to be protected.
The basis of all law is that human life is sacred, hence the reason all talk on abortion moves to that subject. In many cases outside of murder the "sacred" language is often termed "equal under the law" or something like that. No one is considered to be less human and therefore less deserving of basic rights under our system.
YanıtlaSilThat is part of the argument for pro-lifers. Why is an unborn human given less rights from one that is born? What is so special about being inside or outside of the mother? Is a fetus somehow less human than the baby that is born?
A great book is Frank Beckwith's "Defending Life". It is a completely secular argument, not a religious one.
A review, going briefly over the argument, is found here http://www.winst.org/fellows/articles/RTA-20070925-Beckwith-DefendingLife.html