I set out to write a piece that would detail my views on abortion—that it is morally repugnant, that like other things that are morally repugnant (e.g. war) it is occasionally morally defensible, and that there is no practical reason to legislate against it—in such a way that the reader would have no rational choice but to agree with me. Instead, I wrote several paragraphs on the subject of my own superiority to the rest of the human race. Where did I go wrong?
Now that I have some distance from the original post, I can see that I allowed myself to be caught up in the same madness that I was chastising in others. Though it is superficially funny, there is a nastiness to what I wrote that had me feeling uncomfortable only minutes after I'd posted it. Eventually, I figured out the problem: I thought what I was writing was pro-rationality, but it turned out to really be anti-idiot—because that's what scares me more than anything else. I think I was right to say that fear is the enemy, but I'm not doing that much better than anyone else.
Anyway, I think I've really said all that I need to about abortion in the first sentence of this post. I'd like to add one thing, which probably won't advance my argument in any way, but man does this bug me: life does not begin at conception, as, prior to that point, both the egg and the sperm are clearly alive. When you think of all the sperm that had a shot up until then, the loss in life represented by the moment of conception is staggering.
Hmmm... interesting post. Sounds like you agree with the basic abortion belief of the LDS Church (sometimes okay, most times not). I disagree with this and I disagree with your attempt to show that the death of thousands of sperm is worse than the death of one fertilized embryo. There is a huge difference in my mind between the 'life' of these two and their potential.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my last point, you're reading into it something that isn't there. My pet peeve is simply the vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness use of the word life. At any rate, there is clearly no moral issue here as there is no decision: nothing can be done about it one way or another.
ReplyDeleteAre you really saying, as I'm reading it, that you can conceive of no circumstance where you would concede abortion was an acceptable option? If so, what makes an unborn child's life worth more than the life of someone currently walking around (as there are circumstances that would justify taking those lives to your mind.
Moving beyond mere linguistic nitpicking, when people say life begins at conception, they most likely mean either sentience or humanity rather than life. The onset of sentience seems like a particularly significant milestone; there is no evidence that this occurs at conception, but it also pretty clearly occurs well before birth.
ReplyDeleteHumanity is arbitrary enough an attribute that an individual speaker can declare that it begins at any point that suits his argument, sort of like saying, "I win—because." It would be possible to construct a compelling argument around the idea of humanity, but it would have to be done carefully as the word doesn't carry much weight on its own.
Your first reading of my closing statement seems to be in line with the Catholic anti-condom position, which taken to its logical conclusion would suggest a moral imperative to engage in sex at every conceivable opportunity.
"If so, what makes an unborn child's life worth more than the life of someone currently walking around"
ReplyDeleteIt's not that it's more important, but equally important.
I've actually been thinking about abortion a lot lately and I'm torn because, on one hand, I don't think it should be illegal because I believe everyone should have the right to choose to do 'right' or 'wrong'. On the other hand, the 'wrong' in this case is so awful in my mind that it makes me want to make it illegal. I guess I'm one of those pro-life pro-choicers in that I belive abortion should not be illegal but also believe it should not be performed.
As far as your mention of Catholic teaching, I've seen no assertion or implication that sex should be engaged in "at every conceivable opportunity." I just read the article on contraception in the New Catholic Encyclopedia and it seems to emphasize that if intercourse is to occur, it must be between a husband and wife, and should include the possibility of both increasing marital closeness and the generation of new Catholics :)
I know the Catholics don't say that people should have constant sex; actually they're more supportive of the opposite. However, they do have a thing about wasting sperm. Catholics see a difference between a man refraining from sex and simply letting the sperm inside him age and die off and a man using a condom during sex, but I don't as either way you're not giving the sperm a chance. I know there are other issues (fidelity, mainly, put probably others too) that come into play, but if you take the reasoning behind not using condoms and extend that it contradicts other Catholic ideals.
ReplyDeleteThe most compelling argument to my mind for keeping abortion legal is that the laws would likely not actually stop it from happening. As I know you're keen on him, I'll draw a parallel to Bob Barr's aboutface on the War on Drugs issue: it's not that he's suddenly keen on narcotics, it's that government efforts have done little but put money in the pockets of organized crime. Someone will always be willing to provide any service. The only way to stop abortion is to change the way that people think so that no one wants to have abortions anymore.