Being pro-choice makes the most sense in this debate.
Since my last column on sexuality was so well-received by the Christian community at our school, I’ve decided to address a topic that will perhaps push the limits of the whole “love thy neighbor” thing.
The anti-abortionists are going to love this one.
By the way, I use the term “anti-abortion” because “pro-life” implies any number of things that aren’t necessarily true. I find it laughable that people who support torture, war, capital punishment, even the bombing of abortion clinics, can identify themselves as “pro-life.”
Abortion is not murder.
I’m sure that statement is agreeable to everyone, but just in case, I’ll elaborate.
Murder, by definition, means “wrongful killing,” so to argue against abortion simply by claiming that “it’s murder” raises a question.
The issue of abortion is not a debate over whether killing is involved. It is a question of whether it is “wrongful” killing or not.
Before I get into the heart of the ethics of this I would just like to point out that the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being is ludicrous. An embryo is no more a human being than an egg is a chicken.
A collection of cells undergoing mitosis does not a human make. If it did, then around 80 percent of humans beings end up dying before they are even born as they surf their way out of a woman’s body on a wave of menstrual blood.
Yet, I have never attended a funeral for a single one of these “people.”
If you believe that “life” occurs at the moment of conception, then I believe you should start organizing rescue missions to fish all of the pads and tampons out of the garbage in order to save all of those “lives.”
But let us focus on the “pro-choice” ethics of this, rather than the liberally biased science.
I believe that Judith Jarvis Thomson posed two of the best arguments against taking control over a woman’s body against her will.
She makes her arguments by posing scenarios that entail ethical actions. Think about how you would feel in either of these situations. (My apologies to those in the philosophy/ethics department. I know these are paraphrased. I’d print the entirety if I could …)
Scenario #1: You wake up in a hospital and find yourself surgically attached to a famous artist. This artist has a renal disease that will cause him to die.
However, the art society, in an effort to save him, has kidnapped you and attached the artist’s body to yours. Your body not only allows the artist to live, it will save his life, if you allow him to remain attached to you for nine months.
Does the artist’s “right to life” supersede your right to have control over your own body?
Now, this scenario is obviously more analogous to situations where rape is involved, rather than the majority of circumstances when abortions are performed.
However, it does seem morally inconsistent to say that abortions are permissible in situations of rape or incest, if you take a general stance against abortion. An embryo certainly can’t control the circumstances of its inception.
Why does it lose the “right to life” that all other embryos have? Does God care about some embryos, but not others?
Scenario #2: You live in a world where “people seeds” drift through the air. If these people seeds take root in your carpet, they grow into children that you are responsible for.
Since you don’t want children, you place a screen on your window, knowing that sometimes screens are defective.
As it turns out, you end up purchasing one of the one in 100 screens that fails, and a person takes root in your carpet. Do you have the moral obligation to give the people plants unrestricted use of your home?
Now I’m about as much of a fan of Darwin as they come. However, even I see the problems involved in treating women as if they were nothing more than disposable incubators for the next generation.
The fact of the matter is that every pregnancy carries a gargantuan list of health risks. Among them are the inability to take certain medications, ectopic pregnancy, diabetes, hypertension, anemia, varicose veins, stroke, heart attack and death.
That whole “death” part really makes it difficult for me to take the “pro-life” label seriously.
So ask yourself, why should “rights” be given to a clump of human tissue, at the expense of the rights of an actual human being in our society?
Author’s Note: I’d like to thank Dr. Puritan for any concept I have of the nature of morality in general. I would strongly endorse his ethics course to anybody who believes that they have a moral theory that is not utterly hypocritical and meaningless.
Travis Grogan is a political science and communications senior.
A compromise is the best way to solve this debate.
I believe the art of politics is compromise. Therefore, why do we refuse to compromise on the important subject of “life,” specifically evident in the case of abortions?
That seems crazy to me, yet pro-lifers seem to refuse to budge an inch, for fear that the pro-choicers will take a mile; and visa-versa.
Therefore, nothing changes.
Pro-choicers get stuck defending the abhorrent practice of partial-birth abortion, and pro-lifers get stuck saying that the morning-after pill is the same as murdering a 2-year-old child.
Often in politics, the best way to ensure you don’t get anything of what you want is to insist on getting everything you want: and meanwhile, unborn babies are dying.
I am pro-life to the core of my being. I am opposed to all unnecessary violence toward any life, but especially human life.
To me, abortion is based on the flawed assumption that violence solves things. But that’s wrong! Violence exacerbates problems; it never solves them.
Yet, despite being pro-life in my values, I do not vote pro-life. In fact, if I voted, I would vote pro-choice to a degree.
I believe politics should be the art of uniting the state around a particular resolution. In America, a very pluralistic society, these issues are very complex, and we should recognize that others have good convictions, even if they disagree with us.
I don’t believe that there is a single, unambiguous way to settle complex issues – including abortion – in the political sphere.
First, it is doubtful that outlawing abortions is the best way of preventing them. If abortions are highest in places with poverty, then maybe a candidate who is pro-choice but has a better economic model would do more to save these lives than a pro-life candidate who doesn’t address poverty.
And is our goal to save lives or is it to vote “pro-life”?
If one wants to take part in the solution to the abortion debate, one needs compromises that could be agreed on by most everyone. Clearly the extremes are not useful for uniting all Americans. So I propose a compromise.
What if we took the legal criterion for personhood at death and reversed it for the beginning of legal personhood? When a person’s brain activity falls beneath a minimum threshold, we in American society do not consider them a legal person.
So, what if we agreed that when a fetus’ brain activity rises above this minimum threshold, we consider them a legal person, possessing all the rights of persons in the U.S. (including the right to life)?
Gregory Boyd, a pastor in Minnesota, has proposed this idea on his Web site, and he says, “This occurs around the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy” (though obviously it varies based on individual cases).
I think this situation would work to unite us in outlawing the practice of abortion later. After all, most people (at least that I talk to) intuitively think that the later an abortion is, the worse it is.
Likewise, the more abortions we have, the worse it is. Therefore, under my proposal (or Greg Boyd’s proposal rather), we would have far fewer abortions later, and we would have fewer abortions period.
We would be saving more lives under this compromise than in our current situation. And, I believe we could adopt this proposal. I don’t believe this idea is unreasonable.
Now, I don’t present this idea because I believe that life is valuable with brainwaves above a certain threshold. Nor do I present this idea because I believe souls enter at this time or for other religious reasons.
I simply propose this because I feel the need for compromise in the abortion debate, and I feel this is a good compromise. Under my proposal, all abortions past the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy (past the brain wave threshold, whatever that is) would be outlawed, but before then, one would be legally allowed to get an abortion.
I make no moral judgments (except to say that I support life at all stages) because the situation is far too complicated to be dogmatic. I believe laws should be based on compromise and natural law that appeals to everyone’s moral intuitions.
Under this compromise (among others), we would work toward what most of us want (fewer abortions) and save more lives of unborn children.
Regardless of how we feel about the moral judgments, I feel that if we are deciding laws, we should try to work together, to unite with most of the people in society, and come up with a compromise.
Being dogmatic, condemning and judgmental (which I think comes from both sides of the abortion debate) will only result in you not getting anything of what you want, for no one likes someone who has to have everything his or her way.
Joshua Huff is a philosophy and economics senior.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
You know what's awesome? Abortion is legal. There should be no debate. Yet every week (and sometimes EVERY DAY) we're treated to someone giving us their personal opinion on the matter, like it will change anyone's mind. The right approach to abortion is a woman having the choice to make an informed decision without being hassled about it.
The first half is a bunch of rediculous one liners, but the second part seems to have calmed down and tried to present a rational argument.
"What if we took the legal criterion for personhood at death and reversed it for the beginning of legal personhood?"
But what about people who later fall below that brainwave?
Apperantly we're not too keen on detecting it all:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...
For other compromise ideas:
States rights.
Good job Josh.
Joshua,
>> "Pro-choicers get stuck defending the abhorrent practice of partial-birth abortion"
Partial birth abortions are only used to remove a DECEASED fetus. What is abhorrent with that?
>> "and meanwhile, unborn babies are dying."
Yes, so stop masturbating, would you?
>> "abortion is based on the flawed assumption that violence solves things"
Riiiiiiiiight, and what do you have to say regarding rapes and birth defects?
>> "Being dogmatic, condemning and judgmental (...) will only result in you not getting anything of what you want"
Please read what you wrote before your conclusion. At least you have the decency of talking about personhood, though you completely ignore problems related to serious birth defects.
Not that I don't appreciate all perspectives on this issue, but when is a woman going to weigh in on this "abortion article series" the Daily seems to be pursuing? As in most conversations about abortion, women's voices are conspicuously silent in our campus newspaper. I'm just plain tired of hearing men argue about a right they can't exercise and about a situation that primarily affects a population they aren't a member of. Say it with me: co-optation.
"You know what's awesome? Abortion is legal. There should be no debate."
Plenty of things have been legal before, what's wrong with debate?
It's apparently legal for health insurance companies to deny people based on pre-existing conditions. Should there be no debate?
Slavery was legal. Ought there have been no debate?
It'd be one boring opinion section that only talked about things everyone agrees upon.
What sort of things do merit debate? :)
Any column that concludes by recommending a course for "anybody who believes that they have a moral theory that is not utterly hypocritical and meaningless" is a quality piece of writing.
"Now I’m about as much of a fan of Darwin as they come. However, even I see the problems involved in treating women as if they were nothing more than disposable incubators for the next generation."
Are you implying that to be a fan of Darwin is to be a vulgar misogynist like you? The kind you think that you aren't? That's not fair. People don't mind being labeled as Darwin fans, but nobody should have to be lumped in with you. Your sad attempt to be kitsch and irreverent regarding a touchy subject (for people on both sides) is an embarrassment.
Also, good point JenniferC. Let's hear from some women for once.
This issue has a long history for which many people need to be brought to speed on points, especially you Joshua. You say you have are hard time using the term pro-life, instead you think "anti-abortion" is more accurate. You should check with the NARAL about that, and they’ll chastise you for using the A-word. As a pro-lifer I’m glad to wear the label “anti-abortion” You don’t even know enough about this issue to see where you have gone wrong, dummy.
NARAL, and others in abortion advocates, care very much about the power of words and labels. So much so that at one time they attempted to get a federal injunction against the leading members of the anti-abortion crowd to prevent them from referring to abortion advocates as “pro-abortion, and instead make them use the term “pro-choice.” Not satisfied with that, they further ask the court to bar pro-lifers from calling THEMSELVES “pro-life.” And, as if that wasn’t loopy enough, the pro-abortion crowd insisted that the court force the defendants to call themselves “ANTI-CHOICE!” That is the politically correct label for your opponents. Duh.
But let’s have your way. You and your friends call us “anti abortion” and we’ll call you “pro abortion.” OK?
Eightbitgirl… you're on board with this, right?
I admit I don’t know everything about menstruation but I thought that once an egg was fertilized it couldn’t be flushed out by the monthly cycle, as you claim. In fact I seem to recall it being general knowledge that once the egg is fertilized the cycle stops. Isn’t that what broads mean when they say "I’m late?”
Am I wrong on this or, is this another example of your stupidity?
Jennifer C, can you speak you mind on this point?
As to women’s cool-headed decision making... it is,at best, an exercise in self deception. All abortion services tell the female that the fetus is not life, furthermore the word “Baby" is banned from use, because of the patients need to use all her mental ability to convince herself that there is no baby and it isn’t being murdered. This is why clinic protection laws were made to keep protesters, not just back and out the way, but beyond earshot. (See, they were saying things like “Please don’t kill your baby.”)
This use on the B-word is what gets abortion providers so apoplectic. Protecting the woman’s self-esteem is the farthest thing from the pro-abortion people’s minds. They want her to get the abortion ( there money in it). Once that is done they don’t care if the reality of what she has done causes her great mental anguish. Indeed, for years advocates denied even the possibility of “so-called Post Abortion Trauma.” Eventually there were just too many broken women to go on with the charade.
Funny fact; at one point, in order to dramatize how inconsequential having an abortion could be, it was advocated that all women should have at least one abortion, for no other reason than to make the political statement that they alone controlled their bodies. Otherwise they might never be truly sure they actually wanted their children but were, perhaps subconsciously, pushed into it by societal expectations, yada, yada..
Females like Jenifer C ought to think about having one of these recreational abortions, so as to flaunt, in the faces of men, how liberated you are. I’m all for that. Also, I recommend that you girls feel totally uninhibited about getting tattoos, especially on your upper body.
Trust mustafa, you’ll never regret it.
I pose two questions to those on the pro-life side of the fence:
1. If abortions were to become illegal, what would be the punishment for those mothers who violated the law?
2. If women were not allowed to have abortions, would you be willing to financially support single mothers unhappily raising children that they cannot provide for?
Briefly, Grogan's 1st argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Grogan implies that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But he asks, “Do you have to?” He appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”
The strength of this argument is that it grants the full humanity of the fetus and therefore sidesteps the rather poor arguments we saw above. The weakness of this argument is that it is an argument from analogy. Arguments from analogy destruct if they rest on fatal disanalogies.
Besides many of the other problems pro-lifers have pointed out, here's a big one. It seems to make a distinction between consent to pregnancy and consent to sex (as Frank Beckwith and others point out). But it seems that pregnancy is the designed result of sex, even though it may not be the desired result. It would seem that our sex organs have the purpose of being ordered towards procreation. Applying this to the violinist then: What if I engaged in an activity, say, spelunking, that regularly created rare kidney diseases in violinists? Say that every time I dropped 50 ft into the cave, a violinist was almost sure to develop the disease that only I had the blood type to correct or fix. If I did so, should I not be hooked up to him, voluntarily or not? Say that there was protection, some kind of spelunking helmet. Say that it was not 100% effective. If my helmet ripped, should I be attached to the violinist? Or say I tried to "pull up" before I hit 50 ft. Unfortunately, it felt so good to descend that I pulled up a little too late and my right foot passed the 50 ft mark. Should I be attached to the violinist? I don’t see why not. Indeed, say that the statistical evidence was that the first two people that ever spelunked together would eventually cause 6 billion violinists to come down with rare kidney diseases, I dare say the Society of Music Lovers, and almost everyone else for that matter, would call for abstaining from spelunking unless you agreed to take care of the violinists until they got better. This seems fatal to Grogan’s argument.
Which is the best of the lot. Grogan, try harder, and maybe actually read some decent pro-life arguments before you open your mouff.
mustafa dude chill out. your over the top conservatism drives me nuts. i bet you have a confederate flag in your front room and you think it stands for rebels. here's a idea stop arguing about something you dont know about you don't know what these women are going through. i am so for a women keeping the child in most cases but i would never take my morales or my religion and force it on people who dont wont it. so stop being the morale police and let them make their own life choices.
Josh, it was a nice try. Really, it was. Your idea of a compromise is wonderful except for one tiny problem.
It's based on bad science.
See, you're operating under the assumption that somehow neural activity--ANY form of neural activity--is absolute proof of human cognition and self-awareness. I would go so far to extrapolate what you said to indicate that you believe that it is an indicator of the presence of the human soul.
The problem is, that ain't the case. Neural activity takes place in worms less than a millimeter in size. All mammals exhibit this sort of activity. If neural activity was a perfect marker for consciousness, then we could never morally eat a hamburger or test our medicines on animals.
It might take neural activity to make a human conscious, but that doesn't mean all signs of neural activity are necessary indicators of human awareness. There are parts of the brain that have no bearing on consciousness, others that do. The science isn't there yet to establish a definitive link between which neurons lead to the establishment of a human mind.
If there's no clear science, then your ten-week compromise is really just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. I suggest you rethink your philosophy.
qwerty- in answer to your questions
The penalty against abortion is meted out to the providers. It was illegal to provide abortions.
It is common pro abortion spin that pro-life forces run away from helping unwed mothers with unwanted pregnancies. Established programs and resources abound and are easy to find-online, the yellow pages. Perhaps you should give evidence supporting the contention that pro-life people don't care.
Also on the point made in the article that pro lifers won’t compromise. The point is totally backward. It is the pro abortion forces that have never budged from all abortion all the time. Legislation offering the pro life position allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother has always been uncompromising opposed by pro abortion congressmen.
qwerty,
I like interaction!
1) Good question. I'd favor the death penalty for aborticians, and for mothers it's probably best to gradually increase the penalty over the course of some time. It's worthy of a lot of discussion, but it doesn't touch the fact that tearing apart or using chemical weapons against a baby in the womb is murder.
2) Yes, depending on what you mean by "you". Actions have consequences, you know. Let them seek aid from organisations that are set up for that, and with more demand there will be more aid. Did you know there's a big waiting list in the USA for adoption of American children? My church donates to and aids the local crisis pregnancy center. My wife has volunteered significant time there. Etc etc.
You say "but that's really tough!" Yes, *actions have consequences*. If you're so concerned about how tough it's gonna be, here's an idea - don't have sex. Not that hard. I waited until I was married. If I can, you can too.
Freaky, perhaps you can define what you mean by "over the top" on this page.
“ ...i bet you have a confederate flag in your front room and you think it stands for rebels.”
I bet you wear the hoodlums black leather jacket and say it no longer has the stigma it once had.
“… you don't know what these women are going through.”
Did you not read what I said about mental anguish?
“i would never take my morales or my religion and force it on people who dont want it”
That must mean you’re not an environmentalist, an anti-smoking activist, anti –fur, anti-Wal-mart, anti- beef, anti-SUV, etc.
Environmentalism is essentially the power of one citizen to say to his neighbor, “I don’t like the way you live.” You wouldn’t dream of doing that?
ABORTION IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!
Abortion is of course the ultimate excess of environmentalism. Abortions are always desirable, not just those induced through guile and deception, but also those forced through intimidation and even the point of a gun. No matter how , it can always be rationalized away by saying, “ yes it may be unpleasant but after all it is saving the planet.”
Mustafa, you are wrong on that. "A related issue that comes up in this debate is how often fertilization leads to an established, viable pregnancy. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_o...)
I hate the phrase "violence never solves anything."
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." - Robert A. Heinlein
dargus - I stand corrected however those incidents are accidents of nature ("naturally fail to implant") not the willful acts of man.
@Rhology
>> "I'd favor the death penalty for aborticians, and for mothers it's probably best to gradually increase the penalty"
First, it is abortionists, not "aborticians". Second, it is wonderful to have you confirm that you would like to exterminate doctors, nurses and medical personnels for providing morning-after pills or treating ectopic pregnancies. So the whole pro-life label and the ostentatious "love thy neighbor" mantras are just there to cover the murderous intents of hypocritical authoritarian christians.
>> "Yes, depending on what you mean by you."
In other words, no.
>> "Did you know there's a big waiting list in the USA for adoption of American children?"
So, why being pro-life then???
>> "here's an idea - don't have sex. Not that hard. I waited until I was married."
Nobody cares what you did, and, for the last time Einstein: IT DOES NOT WORK.
@mustafa
>> "Abortion is of course the ultimate excess of environmentalism"
They let you out again? Do you remember how to go back home? If somebody ask, then tell them you would like to go back to the Central Oklahoma Community Mental Health Center. It is on 909 E. Alameda. And stay away from schools and sharp objects.
I have to agree with irishcarbomb that violence actually does settle some things. The Holocaust and American slavery, two great examples of terrible crimes that were ended through terrible violence and bloodshed.
hey stafa proved my point you racist idiot. why not hope in your diesel engine dually truck and help heat up the place.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.