Tilted
..
I've been meaning to try to get into this particular conversation for a while; I've just never gotten around to it. But with all the comments I've seen in the wake of the Planned Parenthood baby parts brouhaha, I'm reminded to do so. So...
Abortion is one of very few ideological issues regarding which the correct answer isn't really clear for me. I've gone back and forth on the issue and I'm still not sure where I stand. But I think that's because, at its core, it isn't a political or ideological question so much as an existential philosophical one.
Abortion remains highly controversial, even decades after Roe V Wade, because there isn't much that can be reasoned out about it - there isn't much in the way of position-supporting argument that can be offered from either side of the debate. For both sides, their respective positions amount to little more than begging the question. The underlying question, the only one that really matters, is whether the fetus or the embryo or the unborn baby is a separate living human being. Or rather, at what point in a pregnancy is it such.
On one side of the issue many people think - of course abortion should be illegal, it's the murder of a human being. They're killing babies. But that is, of course, just begging the question. On the other side of the issue many people think - that's not a separate human life, it's wrong to claim it's the murder of a human being, no one is killing babies. And if it isn't a separate human life, then of course the woman gets to decide what to do with her body. But that is, of course, also just begging the question.
I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that isn't a human life we're talking about - if its just part of the woman's body - then the mother should get to do what she wants with her body. Her right to control her body supersedes the rights of a person that doesn't exist. On the other hand, I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that is a human life we're talking about then the mother can't decide she wants to kill it. That separate human's right to live supersedes her right to do what she wants with her body. It's primacy of the nature of the right versus the primacy of the right holder. If we're talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal entities - two separate human beings - then the right to live (of one of those rights holders) is more important, it wins out so to speak, over the right to do something with your body (of the other of those rights holders). But if we aren't talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal parties - if the one is something other than a separate human being itself, e.g., just the potential of life as the Supreme Court described it - then the woman's rights take precedence.
But abortion remains very controversial, and I suspect will for a very long time, precisely because people are deeply divided on that one central point. Many on one side won't even consider that the embryo or fetus isn't a separate human being already. Many on the other side won't even consider that it is. Both sides just beg the question, so there is very little in the way of meaningful debate to be had on the issue.
Even when it comes to the decision in Roe v Wade, most all of the assessment of the propriety of that decision is based on having begged that question. The truly legal considerations of that case are fairly easy. Of course a mother has a constitutional right to decide what to do with her body, if it is only her body we're talking about. Of course she doesn't have the right to kill another human, if it is another human that we're talking about. The case remains highly controversial because the Court wasn't really making a legal decision; it was making a philosophical one, a philosophical one that was essential to the legal one that it had to make. Having made the philosophical decision, the legal decision followed naturally - it was pretty straight-forward and (should be) without controversy. It is the Court's essentially philosophical decision (that, at least in early stages, a pregnancy doesn't involve a separate human life - just the potential of human life) that is, for good reason, controversial. Like I've suggested, the truly legal aspects of the case are hard to argue with. The problem with the decision is, the Court isn't particularly suited to decide such philosophical questions - it's no better suited to decide them than many others. But it had to decide this one in order to decide the legal question, and someone had to make the decision one way or the other. In our system, when it comes to questions of constitutional application, it is ultimately the Supreme Court that must decide. So it was left with little choice but to decide a question the nature of which was considerably outside its realm.
So, anyway, my basic point is this: When it comes to abortion, almost all of the debate and almost all of the rhetoric amounts to little more than begging the question. One side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we're dealing with a separate human being, the other side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we aren't. And, the truth is, there isn't really a correct answer to the question. It's about as existential a question as there is, at least within the realm of questions that aren't just floated for their own sake, among questions for which there's considerable non-theoretical, non-contemplative, importance. We can make up bases on which the distinction - separate human being or not - depends, in order to support our question begging or otherwise. But those chosen bases themselves represent more question begging.
I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.
Abortion is one of very few ideological issues regarding which the correct answer isn't really clear for me. I've gone back and forth on the issue and I'm still not sure where I stand. But I think that's because, at its core, it isn't a political or ideological question so much as an existential philosophical one.
Abortion remains highly controversial, even decades after Roe V Wade, because there isn't much that can be reasoned out about it - there isn't much in the way of position-supporting argument that can be offered from either side of the debate. For both sides, their respective positions amount to little more than begging the question. The underlying question, the only one that really matters, is whether the fetus or the embryo or the unborn baby is a separate living human being. Or rather, at what point in a pregnancy is it such.
On one side of the issue many people think - of course abortion should be illegal, it's the murder of a human being. They're killing babies. But that is, of course, just begging the question. On the other side of the issue many people think - that's not a separate human life, it's wrong to claim it's the murder of a human being, no one is killing babies. And if it isn't a separate human life, then of course the woman gets to decide what to do with her body. But that is, of course, also just begging the question.
I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that isn't a human life we're talking about - if its just part of the woman's body - then the mother should get to do what she wants with her body. Her right to control her body supersedes the rights of a person that doesn't exist. On the other hand, I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that is a human life we're talking about then the mother can't decide she wants to kill it. That separate human's right to live supersedes her right to do what she wants with her body. It's primacy of the nature of the right versus the primacy of the right holder. If we're talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal entities - two separate human beings - then the right to live (of one of those rights holders) is more important, it wins out so to speak, over the right to do something with your body (of the other of those rights holders). But if we aren't talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal parties - if the one is something other than a separate human being itself, e.g., just the potential of life as the Supreme Court described it - then the woman's rights take precedence.
But abortion remains very controversial, and I suspect will for a very long time, precisely because people are deeply divided on that one central point. Many on one side won't even consider that the embryo or fetus isn't a separate human being already. Many on the other side won't even consider that it is. Both sides just beg the question, so there is very little in the way of meaningful debate to be had on the issue.
Even when it comes to the decision in Roe v Wade, most all of the assessment of the propriety of that decision is based on having begged that question. The truly legal considerations of that case are fairly easy. Of course a mother has a constitutional right to decide what to do with her body, if it is only her body we're talking about. Of course she doesn't have the right to kill another human, if it is another human that we're talking about. The case remains highly controversial because the Court wasn't really making a legal decision; it was making a philosophical one, a philosophical one that was essential to the legal one that it had to make. Having made the philosophical decision, the legal decision followed naturally - it was pretty straight-forward and (should be) without controversy. It is the Court's essentially philosophical decision (that, at least in early stages, a pregnancy doesn't involve a separate human life - just the potential of human life) that is, for good reason, controversial. Like I've suggested, the truly legal aspects of the case are hard to argue with. The problem with the decision is, the Court isn't particularly suited to decide such philosophical questions - it's no better suited to decide them than many others. But it had to decide this one in order to decide the legal question, and someone had to make the decision one way or the other. In our system, when it comes to questions of constitutional application, it is ultimately the Supreme Court that must decide. So it was left with little choice but to decide a question the nature of which was considerably outside its realm.
So, anyway, my basic point is this: When it comes to abortion, almost all of the debate and almost all of the rhetoric amounts to little more than begging the question. One side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we're dealing with a separate human being, the other side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we aren't. And, the truth is, there isn't really a correct answer to the question. It's about as existential a question as there is, at least within the realm of questions that aren't just floated for their own sake, among questions for which there's considerable non-theoretical, non-contemplative, importance. We can make up bases on which the distinction - separate human being or not - depends, in order to support our question begging or otherwise. But those chosen bases themselves represent more question begging.
I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.