Comments

One of the biggest frustrations in the abortion debate since the late 1970's has been that it is framed as a religious issue. As long as being against abortion "rights" is seen as the province of evangelicals and conservative Catholics, we're never going to move forward on the issue. Yet, science is on the side of pro-life, because it tells us that a fetus is in fact a human being. We don't need to quote Bible verses to make our case--we have ultrasounds to do that. And this article shows how the pro-choice argument is ultimately internally inconsistent.

If more political progressives would stop and think about the life factor, and stand up to the accusation that we're just trying to control womens' bodies, then maybe we'll start having a real dialogue. There was a day when Ted Kennedy opposed abortion and the magazine The Progressive ran a pro/con feature, but those days are long gone. Now we do and think as we're told. But one of these days I'm going to surprise my partners in social justice activism and get up on the nearest rooftop and shout that we have to stop kidding ourselves about abortion.

Babies are not aborted. Foetuses are.

"Unless you say that the decision is not theirs to make" - Rob's final line is an excellent point. If the decision is not a woman's, whose is it? A cleric who believes in a variation of the tooth fairy and is determined to make everyone adopt his own delusion? The human race is a life form - we are animals like all others, just a tad smarter but certainly not posessed of eternal souls etc unless you are suffering from one or other brand of mass delusion. With at least 9 billion of us on earth by the year 2050 and possibly nearly 12 billion unless efforts to reduce fertility are continued, there is certainly no shortage of humans. More compassionate to be concerned about the 25,000 people a day who are dying of starvation. These are fully formed people who die slow agonising deaths, yet the Pontif seems more concerned with fine points of how many cells makes an embryo than doing something real to stop further suffering.

Wow abortion, it brings out the best in us, or the worst.
Some say "its" tissue others a baby. Has anyone tryed to look
at it from the other side? I saw a bumper-sticker that read
"keep your laws off my body", so if I went up and knocked you down,
would you want me arrested for assault? Can we just pick and choose
between right and wrong for convenience. If we want laws to protect
us why would we not want to protect thoes who can not protect them-self. We have got to a point where is all about who is stronger.
There is a law stronger than the land, its the law of Life

While it appear politically savvy to reframe the abortion debate by removing theological argument and emphasizing scientific and non religious aspects, in the end, such approach will prove disastrous. The reason why we value the lives of the unborn is not because a pre-natal scan told us so. I find it ridiculous that a reader below would claim that science can tell that a fetus is in fact a human being. How so? Is there a scan that shows the image of God? Can they detect a soul? Is starting point of life the moment when the fetus starts looking human (are embryos human being)? How human should the fetus look? Will science then redefine the concept of human being or should we stick to what got us started in the first place, Divine Revelation that informs us that male and female are created in the image of God and as such are protected because of the sanctity of life. If I remove the basis and foundation of my belief in the sanctity of human life (Scripture) what I am left with? and why do I fight?

The ramifications of what should be the basis of the definition of who is a human being need to be considered carefully (one should not confuse scientific visual aids and foundational arguments)

This is a very dangerous path where we might be ready to sacrifice or at least silence our principles and foundational beliefs in order to achieve a given goal

If we create a generation of people that only value life because of scientific aspects, what kind of doors are we opening and what message are we sending about the ultimate authority when it comes to the definition of being human?

We might then win a battle but lose the greater war and displease our creator who is the source and standard of life… after all we have being created in His image

Alain, while you make some interesting points in response my "ridiculous" post, I might remind you that we live in a secular society where not everyone holds the same religious beliefs that you hold. You might be able to convince pro-choice Christians to rethink their position using the framework you described, but how are you going to convince those who do not hold to a religious belief?

You write "Is there a scan that shows the image of God? Can it detect a soul?" There doesn't need to be. There are many non-religous people who believe, just like we do, that taking an innocent human life is wrong. Non-religious humanists still value human life, even if they don't use rhetoric about the image of God. There is nothing wrong with using science to defend life when speaking with those for whom that is the most compelling argument. Do you want to see abortion reduced or not?

My own theological worldview holds that science is our God-given way to understand the creation and I thus do not consider science and faith to be mutually exclusive spheres. Your post suggests that you think otherwise.

The writer Nat Hentoff, himself not a religious person, frames his anti-abortion argument along these lines: taking of innocent life is wrong, science has shown us that an unborn child is in fact alive, therefore taking the life of an unborn child is wrong. If influential people can convince others using this argument, what on earth could be wrong with that?

I guess what I find ridiculous is your suggestion that it would be a terrible road to go down if society increasingly defends life on the basis of science rather than exclusively on religious belief. Would you actually prefer that our society increasingly come to accept abortion, while Christians struggle to keep their thinking about abortion epistomologically pure?

Sorry, make that "epistemologically pure."

Patrick,

Unless I misunderstood you, you seemed to advocate replacing theological arguments with scientific ones. I do not mind scientific arguments along theological ones (au contraire); I am just against silencing theological arguments and taking the Bible out of the debate to make it more secular friendly.
I also believe that it would be disastrous to have science (God given yes, but as limited as general revelation) become the defining factor about what is it to be a human being.

The problem is not the use of scientific arguments that might appeal to the secular world; my issue with your post is the silencing of the biblical argument
You also seem to be unaware or at least downplay the limitations of the approach you propose and its inability to answer fundamental questions about the nature of life, humanity, the beginning of life, the rationale for why we are doing what we are doing; questions that will invariably come into the debate.
The debate is not really a scientific one; it is a philosophical debate about the nature of life
Even the argument from Nat Hentoff that you gave while helpful, immediately shows its limitations: why is taking an innocent life wrong? Who decides? When does the unborn child starts to be alive? Is it at conception? Is it when he or she starts to look human (head, heart beating, legs, arms)?
I do not see a clear epistemological hierarchy in the model you propose

The difference between using science as a “visual aid” and using it as source of moral epistemology is that with the latter you are unable to give anything more than superficial philosophical answers to this philosophical issue
You also run the risk of linking the nature of life to the changing tides of scientific opinion and popular values

I believe that a non-religious pro-life position is not intellectually defensible (same is true for morality outside divine revelation) and will always be relative to society’s values. It might work on the surface but cannot sustain serious inquiries
Your argument will only work as long as scientific findings and society’s interpretation of it within the context of its values will find it acceptable, when the tides will change, the same concept you promote will work against the pro-life values you seek to advance

Good for short term, disastrous for long term

Do secular arguments against abortion work?
Not really, secular countries in Europe and Asia do not seem to have a problem with abortion as it is gaining ground; the main opposition comes from people with strong religious convictions

Alain, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and you bring up some very good points. However, it makes logical sense that as long as the abortion debate is framed solely in religious terms, and as long as primarily religious reasons are given for opposing it, then we are not going to see a growth in opposition to abortion unless we see a significant growth in Christianity in this country. My main concern is that we find language and concepts that can appeal to the non-religious, because we are already losing this argument. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans favoring the "right to choose" (even while also favoring some degree of restriction, though the restrictions don't significantly cut down the number of abortions performed in this country).

I think perhaps you interpreted my original statement that "We don't need to quote Bible verses to make our case" as saying we ought to completely remove faith arguments when we make our case, and that wasn't my intent. I advocate using faith arguments when advocating public funding for poverty-fighting programs or opposing the Iraq War, and I certianly would use the same kind of arguments to oppose abortion. The key is, these arguments work when speaking with people of faith, and I was saying that we have another arsenal of arguments to use with those who do not share our beliefs. That was really just my simple point.

You rightly pointed out that the Hentoff argument isn't perfect because of the philosophical arguments about when life begins. I might also add that there are philosophical arguments about just war, the right of the individual vs. the common good, and so on. That should not stop us from trying to appeal to people using their own language, however. And I think those philosophical arguments could conceivably point to the position of pro-life, and that is why I disagree that this takes us down a dangerous road. When you press a well-meaning pro-choice person on these issues, often it becomes clear that it is a values judgement between individual choice and protecting human life.

Patrick,

I agree with the points you made in your last post

dhfz qmlzbvor lpzcgvux qbxr etwpky hvkgoi qvcalrhm

jnykario wxiugfjc dzvkyfqjr mrupodzy hypls gjye ekzpbh http://www.vownsfqpt.vibkcefl.com