Arguments for abortion being legal despite being immoral (Pro-Choice Stance)
- The first principle of this country is liberty. Infringements on that liberty must be justified by clear moral mandate. We cannot restrict liberty unless we can definitively show that something is so awful that it must be restricted.
- Privacy and the right to it must override your peculiar religious notions of what women should do with their bodies.
- We cannot restrict liberty unless we can definitively show that something is so awful that it must be restricted.
- Privacy and the right to it must override your peculiar religious notions of what women should do with their bodies.
- It’s not clear when life begins, which makes it primarily a matter of religious opinion.
You can’t know when life begins, so it is better to err on the side of protecting the rights of a known human being, the mother. - The exceptions are crucial: rape, incest, life of the mother. And you can’t prevent other abortions while allowing these.
- We shouldn’t impose our morality or religion on other people.
- You can’t legislate morality anyhow.
- Laws won’t stop it, and at least if it’s legal it’s more likely to be safe.
- There’s no practical way to prevent this with the law. It’s unenforceable and the penalties don’t even seem appropriate.
- Making abortion illegal will only mean that it happens in unsafe conditions, and it won’t happen any less anyhow.
- We don’t want the government involved in our private, medical, or sexual choices.
- The human being only acquires rights gradually.
- It’s not clear when life begins, which makes it primarily a matter of religious opinion.
- If you allow contraception, you have to allow abortion, since all the arguments are the same.
- Most people are at least pro-choice about contraception.
- If you don’t have a ueterus, your opinion doesn’t count.
- When you’re willing to go through my pain, pay for my delivery, and adopt my child, then you can talk about forcing me to have it.
Some thoughts on the “rights” issue.
- The premiere value in the world is the sanctity of human life. Don’t let it erode.
Rights over the body are limited by others’ rights and other concerns. (Prostitution, gambling, drugs.) - If every woman has rights over her body, then ½ of all pre-born have same rights because female.
- It’s not being raped that determines whether the product of rape lives or not, but whether the mother decides to keep the baby. There is nothing about the way a child is produced which diminishes the rights of the child. Are adults who were conceived through rape fully human?
- Where does such a right come from? All sources fail. Law isn’t enough, and neither natural nor divine rights theories would justify such a right.
- The real “right” people believe in but won’t say is the “right to be free from all difficulties.”
Some thoughts on the pro-choice arguments
- Does it make sense to say, "Wanted babies are people, but unwanted babies are not?" No, yet this is at the heart of pro-choice thinking. Wanted babies are people, and unwanted babies are also people.
- Arguments used for abortion are easily used for infanticide, and have been in past and even now.
- All the same arguments for abortion were used about blacks, women, Jews, serfs, etc.
Judgments about who is a person are very dangerous. (Slavery, Nazism, killing female babies) - In 1960, 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by doctors. It was no less safe than when it became legal.
- Wanted pregnancies are people, but unwanted pregnancies are just problems?
- “You can’t legislate morality?” We do it all the time. Morality precedes legality. Both in terms of what is appropriate and in terms of getting people to behave. All laws come from morality. And law has a stigmatizing and deterrent effect on behavior. You can't make people be good with the law, but of course you can help them to behave as if they are.
- Alternatives exist: adoption. Lots of people want babies.
- If you’re pro-choice because of rape, you are actually pro-life, because you indirectly validate the prior choice already made of women who have sex voluntarily.
- Obviously rape, incest, and life of the mother are extremely rare. Only 1% of all abortions.
- But if it’s a child it’s a child regardless of how it got here.
- Nobody has a choice of becoming pregnant. They have a choice of having sex, and they have a choice of what to do after they discover they are pregnant. “Pro-choicers” are frustrated because they don’t have a foolproof way to interrupt the sex decision from the conception event, or in the case of rape, the sex act from the conception event.
- Obviously there are lots of limits to what you can do with your bodies and with your privacy. Prostitution, slavery, drug use, child abuse.
- Most of these same arguments were used in defense of slavery.
- It is truly absurd to say that men have no say in preventing abortion but have total obligation in case the woman decides to carry the child to term.
- Legal abortion means the main goal of any fetus should be to escape the womb so he can be protected by the law.
- Why do you think infanticide should be illegal?
- Safe, legal, and rare is impossible. Anything that is made safe and legal which is already desired will not be rare. Anything which is unsafe and illegal which is desired will be more rare.
- Since when should we be concerned that criminal (or immoral) activity be safe?
Agreement on the issue between pro-life and pro-choice:
- Abortion should be rare.
- Life is important.
- Privacy is important.
- Freedom is important.
- The issue matters.
- The issue is divisive.
- We should try to decrease unwanted pregnancy.
- It’s best if people wait until married to risk making babies.
- Abortion is generally immoral, rarely if ever excellent.
- No one ever has to justify why they carry to term.
- Children have full human rights.
- If it’s a person, then it should certainly be illegal.
What is the nature of the problem?
- The real goal should be to reduce the demand for abortion. This will only happen as people either begin to see that abortion is not a morally acceptable solution and as they stop having sex prior to wanting a family. The sex, dating, marriage stuff must precede a discussion of abortion.
Alternative goals
- Given such widespread agreement, we should be able to find a policy approach that will satisfy 95% of the people, which is the total of pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-abortion is the radical minority. Instead of working for illegalization, what might be done to reduce the number from 1.5 million/year?
- Waiting period. If we do it for guns, why not for abortion?
- Informed consent. Dangers of abortion and a sonogram. Every other medical procedure requires this, why not abortion too?
- Counseling on the options from a non-abortion provider.
Also, be sure to check out my newest article: A Reminder to Pro-Life Christians.
2 comments:
Thank you for a useful resource. Your comment that "[t]he real 'right' people believe in but won’t say is the 'right to be free from all difficulties,'" is insightful. I'd like to be free of difficulties, but the "right" to be free of difficulties translates into the "right to shift my difficulties onto someone else." We don't currently have available the "no difficulties for anyone" option. We are, however, blessed with the phenomenon that one person's difficulty is another's joy (e.g., adoption).
Andrew,
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath recently held a taped discussion for a Dawkins documentary (see link below). At about 1 hour and 5 minutes into the interview, McGrath is allowed to ask a question. He asks Dawkins why he is so angry at religion. Dawkins answers that religion discourages thought...but then goes on to say that "it is such a privilege to be born at all" and that his and McGrath’s births were "improbable events." He also says that it is an “enormous privilege to be able to understand the universe and why we are here and where we come from."
I thought this exchange was rather germane to your show on abortion. I see on occasion that atheists get angry with religious folks for holding to positions such as opposing abortion. Given Dawkins comments, it would appear that he has a high value on life. I do not know the man or his view on this issue, but he is held in high esteem by many in the atheist community. If other atheists hold a similar view on the value of life and our existence, it is hard to see how they should, in turn, be angry with many Christians for raising concerns with abortion.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&pr=goog-sl
Post a Comment