I write this essay in response to your request for intellectually stimulating debate on the topic of abortion. I fear that my presentation of logical
analysis will bore some. I also wish to make this point clear: I do not express my point of view intentionally in this essay.
At this point in time, I find the abortion debate shallow. Both pro-life and pro-choice (neat labels) choose to back into logical arguments in
order create an intellectual basis for their respective emotional viewpoints. Perhaps, but not likely, the debate might progress if both sides
would recognize their views are based upon emotion and acknowledge the intractable nature of each other's viewpoint. With this in mind, I will
attempt by this essay to pull the logical rug out from under both sides.
Disagreement #1: The definition of life. Clearly this definition is the most semantic of all. There is no objective basis for defining life -- not in
science nor in theology.
Theological definitions must be viewed within the framework and scope of their subject. Theology is the "science" of spiritual existence and
moral law. Hopefully, the majority of the enlightened recognize that, upon setting aside personal beliefs, there exist many belief systems other
than the one to which any given individual adheres. These belief systems parallel the cultural and language traditions of core anthropological
roots and develop into sociological value systems. Since historians and anthropologists have identified several "cradles" of civilization (core
anthropological roots), we can acknowledge multiple value systems and should concede that each system has merit within the context of its
own set of beliefs. We can, therefore, conclude that there is no absolute regarding theology (again, setting aside our personal beliefs and
relying solely upon logic); and, therefore, there is no absolute theological definition of life for the above reasons of sociological relativity and
acknowledging the limitation of the scope of theology (i.e., spiritual existence and moral law).
With regard to the scientific definition of life, a similar analysis is required. Science is not an absolute in terms of values, but instead a system
of observation, analysis and reporting based upon mutually accepted definitions. These definitions are arbitrary and serve a purpose solely for
observation and reporting findings. Science is not a value system. The use of definitions is to make an observation with its accompanying
analysis universally comprehensible by utilizing a vast number of mutually accepted definitions. Even the scientist will argue the morality of a
definition, but not its purpose for science. Therefore, there is no scientific definition of life within the scope of the abortion debate.
Based upon these arguments, it is clear there is no objective or absolute definition of life.
Argument #2: Labels. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. God help us all.
Both labels are cheesy ploys. Nobody wants to be Against-Choice or Against-Life. These labels help to keep the distance between both
sides. The real labels should read "I am for my beliefs only".
Unfavorable Choices: The impact of the position of each side is unfairly cruel to the other. Those for abortion can't help but offend those
whose beliefs include the commencement of life at conception; while those against abortion can't help but limit the freedom of those who favor
legalized abortion.
Inconsistent Choices: I hope that all who embrace the Pro-Life point of view do not utilize nor have utilized either hormonal or mechanical
contraceptives including specifically the Pill or I.U.D. Both methods terminate post conception. I certainly hope no one is caught in this
offensive dilemma while proposing to prohibit abortion. It would certainly compromise the legitimacy of an individual's Pro-Life point of view.
Additionally, I hope those who embrace Pro-Choice have never opted for abortion due to failure to utilize birth control (of whatever type) or
due to a "change of mind". Abortion, even by choice, is a severe violence to a woman and, used as birth control, is like hunting for rabbits with
a nuclear weapon. Theology aside, abortion is damaging to the spirit of a woman (and perhaps her mate.)
History Revisited? Apparently in 1917, the majority (at least reflected by Constitutional Convention) thought alcohol consumption was
immoral. I think all of us are aware what the results were of that Constitutional amendment. I hope we learned that enforceable laws must be
based upon a morality shared by the vast majority of those affected.
Basis of Law: For a government to not only survive, but to thrive, and for the people governed therein to live full lives, it is a necessity that
the laws of that government reflect the generally held morals and beliefs of the people governed. That is the definition of reasonable law. Both
sides should seriously consider this issue.
For the past 150+ years, our country has been a haven for persons persecuted for their ideas and beliefs. We have attempted to integrate those
differing beliefs and ideas into our culture (or what some would call our lack of culture). In most countries of the world, the term "nation" is
consistent for both its people and its boundaries. In our country, "nation" refers solely to our boundaries. We as a people are continually
challenged to fight for our freedom in very personal ways -- to hear the point of view of another person with whom we vigorously disagree and
to observe behaviors we find offensive personally. We are not a nation in the same manner as are the Germans, the French, the Italians and so
on.
In conclusion, please raise (lower) the debate to the appropriate level. Don't insult me by defining the commencement of life. Be honest with
yourselves and with each other. You Disagree! That disagreement is based upon your personal beliefs and nothing more. Don't cite the Bible
because some of our citizens aren't Christian or Jew. Don't cite James Madison because this is an issue beyond the scope of the Constitution.
Those who base their Pro-Life stance Biblically, should look to the fundamentalist states such as Iran and ask themselves, "Is this what I really
want?"
And for those who would never limit our freedom of choice, consider the government of true freedom -- anarchy.
