I don’t have time right now to answer in full Theomorph’s latest intellectual challenge, but I’ll take a moment to react to this:
Many people have argued that we make laws against acts like murder, theft, and assault because we have no choice if we want to maintain a stable society. We have even created psychological definitions of "normal" behavior that label as antisocial and mentally ill the people who are prone to these acts. Hence, while there may be some people who privately have no moral qualms with murder, theft, or assault, the rest of us have no problem with imposing our "morality" on them, because any arguments they might make in favor of their morality would be labeled as not just irrational, but pathological.
However, most people do not consider the desire to obtain an abortion as irrational or pathological. In fact, there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.
Theo might be trying to be provocative again. If so, call me provoked. This viewpoint creeps me out and makes me shudder. Since when do two wrongs make a right? This kind of "feminism" really pisses me off. Women do not have to become men to gain equality! That is not real feminism. Real feminists seek to achieve equality (such as equal pay, equal respect, and equal rights) by embracing that which is feminine and challenging society to accept them without imposing androgyny.
If men are scum that sometimes plant seed and fail to care for what grows, we must try to stop that from happening. Whether it be by law or by education, we should seek to solve this problem, not encourage women to be just as selfish and inconsiderate. Besides, using abortion to level the playing field begs the question of whether abortion really benefits women. I’m sure Feminists for Life have a few things to say about that nonsense.
Do I think abortion is irrational? Yes. Its unsound judgment. Is it pathological? Yes. It’s a symptom of a diseased society. On a visceral level, irrespective of my faith, I am disgusted and frightened by the notion of a society that sees children as an unwanted responsibility or investment to slough off. If children outside the womb are treated as unwanted and sloughed off, the parents are charged with criminal neglect or worse, depending on the means. If medical professionals treat patients as unwanted, they’re in serious trouble, too. Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? Well, another question is being begged here.
That question is whether or not a fetus may/must be considered person and thus deserving of protection. That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion. Atheists are often quick to point out that ethics and morals need not be grounded in religion. Well, if that’s really what they believe then they shouldn’t be upset if some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning. Such reasoning exists and yet secularists still reject the pro-life movement off-hand, seemingly as though it were part of some conspiracy to construct a theocracy.
Finally, there are a lot of things that humans can be stuck with in the course of their lives. Some things can be avoided. Others can’t. Some may/should be avoided. Others shouldn’t. I have a great deal of sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, that unfortunate situation in and of itself does not secure them the right (since Theomorph objects to "giving" rights) to end a fetus’ life. That it is a life, there is no doubt. Is it a person? That’s a question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily and that supporters of abortion rights don’t seem to want answered. So long as it’s about a woman’s body, a woman’s rights, and a woman’s choice, pro-lifers look like a bunch of Puritans itching for a witch trial. I wonder how slave owners saw abolitionists.
” there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.”
Wrong. They may put the child up for adoption so that a family wishing to raise children may do so. Casting aside a life because a night of concentual sex didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to is not a reason for abortion.
Go check the numbers. Too many American families are going abroad to adopt. Logic would dictate that if we stopped aborting and supported adoption this situation would change over night.
You’re also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people don’t think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be “disgusted and frightened,” but lots of people are not.
But isn’t there a fundamental, nearly ubiquitous, irrationality regarding pregnancy in our society? When a woman announces she’s pregnant, there is an assumed joy associated with it. (Otherwise, I s’pose she wouldn’t announce it.) And consider the language we use: When’s the baby due? Are you hoping for a boy or a girl? Happily pregnant women (and their committed SOs) always speak of the “baby” and (practically) never of the “zygote”, “embryo”, or “fetus.” Obviously when a pregnancy is unwanted, different language might be used. We speak of the “pregnancy” and its “termination.”
So a fetus is bestowed “human rights” when the mother feels so? But, Theo, I’d think that you, more than most, would be repulsed by allowing such touchy-feely sentiment to determine justice in a given situation.
So you’re not upset that some folks find abortion “unethical based on logic (and other ballpark synonymns).” But you are upset when people try to force :olutions despite a lack of social consensus?
First, are you saying that logic always leads to a broad social consensus? Is a broad diversity of opinion is always indicative of a lack of logic on the part of one or more parties?
Second, and this has been asked before, what amount of consensus is necessary for a “majority” for force “their own solution” into law against the wishes (and possibly freedoms) of the “minority”?
Cheers!
I have said it elsewhere, but I’ll say it again: I don’t think abortion is a good substitute for birth control or personal responsibility. But I don’t think that means it should be illegal, either.
You’re also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people don’t think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be “disgusted and frightened,” but lots of people are not.
“Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? . . . That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion.”
It doesn’t really matter what the question need or need not involve. You can’t just brush away the disagreement by simply claiming that your side is right. I’m not “upset [that] some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning.” I’m upset that some folks want to “solve” a problem without a solution of social consensus by forcing their own solution into law.