Camille Paglia is an enlightened liberal. She may or may not be the first rational member of her species, but if she's not, she may be as close as a liberal can get. In her latest column which begins with a vicious dismissal of John McCain's heroism, she then morphs into a tough assessment of Barack Obama as prelude to an extraordinarily effusive bit of praise for Sarah Palin. Paglia's take on America's Sister is pitch perfect. She loves her. Who wouldn't?
But it's where Paglia ends up that really grabbed my attention. She says that she regards abortion as murder, but demands a woman's unlimited right to make that choice. That's bold. What's even more amazing is that she makes sense. This is of particular interest to me because it was only yesterday that I was wondering how the abortion gap between liberals and conservatives could ever be bridged, and I was thinking that the only possibility is for liberals to admit that life begins at conception. Paglia does that.
And so we are immediately closer to compromise than I'd ever thought possible. But let's be clear, I'm talking about compromise between Camille and me, not liberals and conservatives, both of which are so entrenched in the extreme that unless both groups adapt the Camille Paglia-Ted West approach, this battle will go on ad infinitum. And both groups are wrong, though conservatives have principle on their side: being that if something is alive, it's wrong to kill it arbitrarily.
However, I don't consider abortion to be murder, at least not all abortions. Paglia does, by the way. That shocked me.
Here's how I see it. A fetus is as alive as you or I, but with notable differences: it's lacking awareness, and at least to some point, it likely feels no pain. Consequently, killing a fetus in the early stages of development is not the same as killing your ten-year-old (who probably deserves it more). And it's not the same as killing a fetus in the third trimester.
So where Paglia says it's murder and still demands that women should be allowed unlimited choice, I only say that it's killing, but that women should not be allowed unlimited choice.
Mistakes happen, and while it would certainly be better, or at least far more moral and ethical to bring that mistake to term, I'm not going demand that a woman do that… the first time. She's wrong to kill the fetus, but she's not a murderer in my eyes. One would hope that her conscience would allow her to experience all the ethical considerations leading to her decision, but if she can live with herself, I would accept her choice.
But again, I'm talking about the first time. The second time, I would regard as serious misdemeanor, punishable by fine and/or jail time. not that it's more serious for her to disrupt a second life, but because at some point, if discipline and conscience fail her, the State has to step in and impose its values on the woman, which is the main reason for the State to exist in the first place.
Needless to say, a third time would then be a display of cold callousness that no society should accept, and thus the punishment should be stiff.
So If Ms. Paglia would accept this limit on choice, we can put this matter to rest. It should displease left and right equally, but I think it's realistic and fair. Not to a particular fetus necessarily, but to a whole lot more fetuses than receive fair and ethical treatment under the current situation.
The broad scale solution has to involve the admission by liberals that abortion is killing. The idea that we don't know when life begins is preposterous, but it's fair to argue when life as we know it begins, and that line of demarcation should be when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb on its own. As I indicated, there are ugly choices all around, but neither side should expect to get exactly what it wants. That's not only unrealistic, it's not defensible.
I applaud Camille Paglia. I admire her bravery. But then I admire mine too.
Editor's Note: The image of Barack Obama in Freddy Kruger makeup is courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.
Ted, I gotta disagree with you on the awareness=humanity issue. By your definition, people in a coma, or with Alzheimer’s are no longer human. For as surely as an organism can become human, then surely it can lose that humanity.
That’s a dangerous precedent to set. If I went on a murderous spree at a nursing home, knocking off seniors with alzheimer’s, I’d get away with it in your Awareness-populated world.
And if an allegedly “unaware” fetus isn’t human, how is a child with severe down’s syndrome? Are they no longer human?
Sperm isn’t a human being. Neither are eggs. But combine them together and they form a new creation, that is from that moment on, “human.” Humans that develop and become sapient. No dog, tree or whale can ever develop into a sapient being.
You know it’s not often I disagree with you, Ted. But you’re wrong on this issue.
T.R. is absolutely correct. This kind of philosophy is dangerous because it defines human beings apart from anything intrinsic. In this case our humanness is tied to mere form and function.
Many people don’t realize there are only four differences between the unborn and the born. They are as follows: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of these characteristics are morally relevant such that we can say that it’s okay to kill/murder the unborn while the rest of us are happily inducted into humanity simply because we were wanted. Not the first time, second time, or ANY time, Ted.
If the third abortion is morally reprehensible then so is the first and no amount of ignorance or moral vacuity can justify the action. I certainly don’t ascribe to a sliding scale. Nor do I think Paglia’s position is defensible or (as you stated) “bold.” I think her position is weak, immoral, and with all due respect, Ted, stupid.
One reason Paglia’s little experiment doesn’t fly is that all of the characteristics I mentioned earlier can be applied to those of us lucky enough to NOT have been aborted. For example, a four year old girl is less developed than a fourteen year old girl. The four year old doesn’t even have her reproductive system in place yet. Should we be able to murder her because of it? Is she less human than the teenager simply because she is less developed? No one would argue that…at least not yet, but the logic derives the same way and that goes for size, degree of dependency, and environment.
I have written extensively on this subject. One article which might interest you can be found here. In that case I was writing about “mercy killing,” but the counterintuitive consequences are the same: The value of the life in question is being predicated on both subjective evaluation and arbitrary criteria. This is unacceptable.
besides, the real reason libs want abortions is they can’t risk the creation of more conservative voters!
I can’t believe I didn’t convince everyone!
In an effort to spare you and myself, I’m going to speak in “one liners” as much as possible.
It’s a very large leap in logic so assume that allowing s woman some control over body would lead to less regard for human life elsewhere because it would have happened already since a woman has complete discretion now.
Paglia and I agree that egg + sperm equals a “new creation,” but to argue that an early term fetus is the same as a coma victim is an enormous stretch.
The keyword is “develop.”
Early abortion is murder? I’d never convict someone of that.
It’s not wrong to regard human life at any stage as sacred, but to impose that belief on another is, at best, unworkable.
Another keyword is “differences.”
I’m not arguing the level of reprehensibility, though I would feel much worse about aborting a 6-month fetus than I would at two months.
I would not agree that one is “lucky” not to have been aborted, and I myself would have preferred to have never been born, but I wasn’t given that choice.
I’m not an atheist, but belief in the sanctity of life as arising from an all-good creator is a view I do not share.
When strict adherence to the sanctity of life results in more loss of it, not less, where’s the morality in that?
Thanks for responding, Ted. I will have to defer my “moot” reply until later as I am tied up today and possibly the entire weekend.
Anyway, I appreciate both the contribution and your comments.
See you.
What is so different about a fetus in early developmental stages and a person in a coma- or asleep? Both are dependant on others for life; if I don’t wake up, I starve to death, unless hooked up to some machines.
Seriously, explain to me how a fetus magically becomes human pre pop-out.
Trog,
I’d be happy to explain if you’ll first be kind enough to explain why that wouldn’t be an enormous waste of time on my part?
If you can provide a link to a site that explains the issue instead, that’d be fine. I truly am interested in learning the rationale behind the idea of humanity being a development. I had always thought the anti-lifers were debating that a fetus couldn’t live without the mother, and it was her choice to provide that support. Now you’ve alerted me to a dangerous philosophy of only self-aware humans having a right to live (in the womb). As this surely could be expanded to taking away the right to live from humans at other stages in their life, I am very keen to read more.
As an addendum, I’d like to say I find it curious that people often want to express that children have rights- instead of telling them they are the property of their parents. Does Birth confer those so-called rights to self-direction? and isn’t it funny that it’s a crime in many states to abuse a corpse, something that isn’t alive, yet it’s okay to murder a human fetus?
Site? Link? I presented my opinion, based on my reasoning. Your reasoning is rooted in a belief in God, and a God that is all good. And that’s based on hearsay. You have no evidence, only words of prophets and Jesus. They may be right or not. You believe they are, I have serious questions.
And I knew going in that I was at a disadvantage, not because your position is unassailable, but because my conscience doesn’t permit me to write the kinds of things I’d like to say if I had no concern for you as a person.
But I find your reasoning to be biased by your beliefs, and faulty in its logic, not to mention that you’ve imputed ideas and concepts I never said and do not support myself.
I’m willing to present just one example:
“you’ve alerted me to a dangerous philosophy of only self-aware humans having a right to live ”
I said nothing about self-awareness, that’s’ your creation. I said only that there are distinct levels of development. I also at least implied that I personally felt it was wrong to kill a fetus at any stage, but that I wouldn’t vote to convict a woman of murder, at least in the first stage of pregnancy. So you can preach all day long about how there’s no difference between a fetus at the moment of conception and a newborn, and you will never win me over. Because it’s clear that there is… one is a life, and one is developing.
Now I hesitate to use this imperfect example, but I’m going to because it’s as close as I can get short of telling you my actual beliefs of God and life, and which I feel would put a person like yourself at risk for no reason I can justify.
Take a vegetable garden. When those seeds start to germinate, they WILL, most likely, develop into fully developed plants.
Now the following is irrelevant to the argument about the fetus, but I have to say it to make my point…
Gardeners always plant more seeds than they need or want because some won’t develop. however, most do, and that requires thinning.
OK, now we resume the part of the analogy that’s applicable to our discussion…
Seeds start below the ground. They are not visible, and they can be easily killed (and note the word “killed”) simply by something as inadvertent as stepping on the soil.
Those sprouts that see the light of day, are not the same as a fully developed plant, though they will become one. And while one may hate to destroy a seedling, it’s far different than yanking a fully grown plant out of the ground, especially one that’s started producing.
I realize this is cold and I am in no way equating a human fetus with a seedling except insofar as showing the very different levels of development from the initial stage to a fully viable entity.
I realize that you want to infuse a soul from day one, and I appreciate your strong concerns for life, but if you can’t win me over, you’re never going to win pro-choice people over, and that means an interminable impasse that results in even greater loss from your perspective.
And here’s the worst part: even my “sensible” compromise is never going to happen, so this whole discussion is pointless, and it’s why there’s no reason to pursue this any further.
Oh, and one more thing. whenever I tell people that I can’t say what I really think, they invariably beg me to go ahead because they can take it. I believe that’s true for most of the people I encounter, but that still doesn’t give me the right to inflict such dark concepts on them. As a young man reading motivational books, a big caveat was that you should always avoid things and people who may bring you down. The things I might say would have to other effect than to bring you down, and I want no part in that because I respect people who find comfort and security in their beliefs. No good can come from me possibly shaking them.
Well, I do feel better knowing there isn’t a philosophy among the pro-deathers that awareness=humanity. Sorry I took that from your statements, but it sure did seem that way. Maybe I was speed-reading…
I suppose that if you see no difference between a human and an animal, then your philosophy of becoming a “human” at some point in development makes a kind of twisted sense. (I personally believe that humans possess souls and critters don’t, as evidenced by the fact no humans were sacrificed in the bible; and yes, there was the famous test of Abraham, but no actual humans were harmed)
Thanks for ‘splainin’ yourself. No hard feelings, I hope.
Hiya Ted,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. But in reality I’m not really getting back to you because we both know that this is more for the voyeuristic among us than for you…lol. We also know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a blog plays microphone man in the comments section. Since my blog is no exception, I will have the last word.
I don’t think T.R. entirely missed your point, at least as you presented it. You stated:
“Here’s how I see it. A fetus is as alive as you or I, but with notable differences: it’s lacking awareness, and at least to some point, it likely feels no pain. Consequently, killing a fetus in the early stages of development is not the same as killing your ten-year-old (who probably deserves it more). And it’s not the same as killing a fetus in the third trimester.”
In other words, it’s morally wrong, to have an abortion, but the moral seriousness of having an abortion (and thus the consequences) are inversely proportional to the fetus’s level of development.
You also stated: “The idea that we don’t know when life begins is preposterous, but it’s fair to argue when life as we know it begins, and that line of demarcation should be when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb on its own.”
Where the former deals with level of development, the later deals with environment and degree of dependency. You seem to be making the case that these differences don’t make abortion a serious moral wrong unless the perpetrator commits the act numerous times. Whereas the pro-life position is that abortion is a serious moral wrong at any stage in development. Also, we would call it just as heinous the first time as the third.
You are incorrect to cast the position as solely Bible based, although Christian teachings certainly are consistent with the view. The fact is, the very same criteria you enumerated for induction into humanity can be applied to human beings outside the womb. Therefore, if we aren’t willing to base the humanness of individuals outside the womb on the same criteria, why are we imposing them on the “fetus?”
Finally, I would be willing to accept legislation amiable toward the pro-life view. That means, I would indeed support the kind of legislation you propose in your piece. I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. But my “extreme” view would remain the same, and after I got that concession, I would continue to work for overturning the Roe court’s decision. Most pro-lifers would do the same. It’s not an all or nothing proposition, Ted.
Trog,
There’s no hard feelings… at this point, but I don’t like the way you appear to characterize me
“I suppose that if you see no difference between a human and an animal, then your philosophy of becoming a “human” at some point in development makes a kind of twisted sense.”
Nothing I think makes twisted sense, and I can say the same about you for your beliefs to which I don’t subscribe and not only find preposterous, but wildly improbable, and I will explain why in my responsse to Chad.
I also appreciate where you’re coming from though because I often use loaded language when I’m addressing things I feel passionate about. The trouble is, what I say, I mean, and I believe you do as well, and a person with less discipline than I might feel your comment needs addressing in kind. I assure you I can do that, but I hope I never will.
“I personally believe that humans possess souls and critters don’t, as evidenced by the fact no humans were sacrificed in the bible”
I have no problem with your belief, but the example you pressented is not evidence.
I’ve decided that there are a few things I can say that shouldn’t put your belief system at risk, and I will take that up next…
Chad,
I’ve saved the worst for you because I know I can be more direct without testing our relationship.
Trog indicate that he saw my comment about lacking awareness as the dividing point, when I clearly said it was one of the differences between early development and later development, not the deciding factor. In fact, no one can say when awareness begins, but I doubt it’s at any point in the womb.
“In other words, it’s morally wrong, to have an abortion, but the moral seriousness of having an abortion (and thus the consequences) are inversely proportional to the fetus’s level of development.”
No. It’s morally wrong (to me) to kill the fetus at any point, but I would never call it murder, and based on physiology, it becomes more difficult to justify termination at each stage of development. I would be horrified if someone were to tell me she aborted a 7 month fetus. i would feel badly that she did so at one month. How God feels about it is between him and her, but he’s got his own explaining to do, since by biblical accounts, he’s engaged in random mass murder.
“You seem to be making the case that these differences don’t make abortion a serious moral wrong unless the perpetrator commits the act numerous times.”
I believe I indicated that I felt it was a greater moral wrong to do so multiple times. You want to make both a grave moral wrong, and that’s fine for your personal belief, but I reject the one-size-fits-all reasoning, especially since a certain percentage of beginning fetuses don’t make it to term because of natural causes. Maybe she aborted a baby that she’d have miscarried anyway. Only God and her hairdresser knows for sure.
Besides, and this is of paramount importance: if God didn’t want to play games with us, he’d have made his intentions clear, not laid down in a series of pronouncements that are nothing more than hearsay put forth by primitives.
Why didn’t he “appear” when he knew there would be videotape?
What’s with the cryptic messages and mind games?
“the very same criteria you enumerated for induction into humanity can be applied to human beings outside the womb.”
Yes, they could be. That doesn’t mean they should or would be.
“Therefore, if we aren’t willing to base the humanness of individuals outside the womb on the same criteria, why are we imposing them on the ‘fetus?’”
I forget the logical term for what you did there, but that reasoning is faulty, and it would take more effort than I’m willing to expend to detail the many differences.
“I would indeed support the kind of legislation… But… after I got that concession, I would continue to work for overturning the Roe court’s decision.”
Which is one of a number of reasons why it would never happen. Because the other side knows how you feel and that your acceptance of a compromise is merely an attempt to gain advantage.
“Most pro-lifers would do the same. It’s not an all or nothing proposition”
I absolutely is. You want all, they want none, and thus no compromise will ever work.
But here’s something to consider: if you feel that abortion is murder, then you are standing by and watching the worst atrocity in human history while merely discussing its wrongs. Is that what your God would want? I don’t know, but the god I see would be most amused at the chaos.
Well, I said I was going to have the last word, Ted. But after I saw all the work you put in on those comments I felt obligated to publish them. Now I have to put two more cents in so I can actually have the last word, thus killing this thread for good…or possibly bad. Actually, I did ask you a question which I would honestly like an answer to. So if you want you can just skip all my meandering drivel, my friend, and go straight to the sixth paragraph, after which I will, indeed, kill this thread so we can get on with life (pun intended).
Anyway, here are a few rejoinders:
First, I don’t stand idly by and do nothing while abortion on demand continues in this county. For starters I pray, Ted. I also write, which believe it or not has been somewhat fruitful in helping the pro-life cause. Also, I actively lobby my representatives and work to educate those who oppose us. In other words I do everything I can within the limits of the law and my own conscience to stop the scourge of abortion. That is what I believe my God would want. But then what God “wants” or doesn’t is another topic for discussion.
Second, you’re still making the case that degree of dependency (viability) and level of development are what makes the unborn human. And as I stated earlier, unless you’re willing to place the same requirements on the already born, I see no rational way you can apply it to the unborn without being logically inconsistent. THERE ARE ONLY FOUR DIFFERENCES and there is no error in logic here. People who insist that these criteria are what make one human should be prepared to apply their logic across the widest possible bandwidth. Most are not because they realize that rights of personhood would then be based on their own environmental, physical, and intellectual maturity. That means rights of personhood would at some point be taken from them. Why? Because under this view we’re all on a great big bell curve, gradually gaining rights of personhood as we reach maturity and then losing rights of personhood as we become “over the hill.” In any case, it’s always easier for so-called humans to impose their morality on the fetus (incapable of speaking out or fighting for its own survival) than it is to do so with another life form who can, like say, the mother of the fetus. Bottom line, the sum of our value as human beings isn’t predicated on our form and function, Ted. That is precisely where this view leads.
Third, the question of God’s mass murder is a theological topic for another thread, which I won’t address here, except to say since God is the only one capable of creating life ex-nihilo as it were, as such he is the only one who can take it. As a matter of fact, he creates and takes life every day.
Fourth, if abortion isn’t murder, then why is it morally wrong? You stated that the act was morally wrong (to you) but you wouldn’t classify it as murder. So I’m wondering under what auspices are you classifying it as morally wrong?
Keep the thread alive!!!
Uh, Ted, if I don’t characterize you right, please correct me. Based on your writing, I see you as a non-Christian. Not sure what your stance is on souls, but you hint at believing in a creator.
Frankly, I’m cornfused.
If I’m savvy, then you see abortions in a misdemeanor/felony-type sense: graduated in heinousness based on the fetus’ development.
But you don’t think it should be illegal, despite your acknowledgment that it is immoral. Is that right?
What then is the developmental factor that makes a 7 month old fetus more important than a freshly conceived one? Or a born baby more important than a fetus? What if a baby is premature, popping out at 7 months, not fully developed? Seriously, I want to understand your viewpoint. If this isn’t an awareness factor what is it?
Self-sufficiency? The world is full of folks that couldn’t get by on their own? How many readers, crashed on an island for example, could find food, build shelter or even start a fire? Shouldn’t we abort them from the social security rolls now while they’re young?
And since I brought it up, where do critters fall in your equation? Is killing an animal okay? What about an unborn animal? Do you see any difference between an animal and a fetus? (I do)
Trog,
“Based on your writing, I see you as a non-Christian… but you hint at believing in a creator.”
I was raised Catholic. I rejected that at 18. I don’t believe there’s a God, but there may be, so I’m not an atheist. If there is a God, I believe he and the devil are synonymous. All one has to do is ask himself how he’d act if he were God, and you see what I mean.
But now Chad has injected the “We can’t know God’s plan” into it, and I have my next dilemma – whether to leave it there or answer, “No, but we know enough to know that if there is a God, he employs fear and thuggery to manipulate his pets.” (Ask me about my personal theory of God sometime, it makes more sense than the Bible.)
“you see abortions in a misdemeanor/felony-type sense: graduated in heinousness based on the fetus’ development.”
Exactly right. I also distinguish between legal and moral. There are many immoral acts that aren’t illegal.
“But you don’t think it should be illegal, despite your acknowledgment that it is immoral. Is that right?”
Please see above.
“What then is the developmental factor that makes a 7 month old fetus more important than a freshly conceived one? Or a born baby more important than a fetus?”
Uh, that would be the “development factor?”
“What if a baby is premature, popping out at 7 months, not fully developed?”
I’ve said that viability would be my cutoff.
“If this isn’t an awareness factor what is it?”
Awareness has nothing to do with it. A newborn is probably not aware for months.
“Self-sufficiency? The world is full of folks that couldn’t get by on their own?”
Irrelevant. You don’t arbitrarily take a life that’s being lived however imperfectly.
“How many readers, crashed on an island for example, could find food, build shelter or even start a fire? Shouldn’t we abort them from the social security rolls now while they’re young?”
C’mon, if that makes sense to you then I should have stopped long ago.
“And since I brought it up, where do critters fall in your equation?”
Interesting you should bring that up. I’ve been a vegetarian for decades, but I have no problem with killing every animal on the planet, though I would grudgingly accept zoos.
“Is killing an animal okay?”
Please see above.
“Do you see any difference between an animal and a fetus? (I do)”
As do I. That’s why I’d bring charges for repeated abortions.
Now Chad, I believe I answered your “sixth paragraph,” but as you can see, I’m more concerned with your “God’s plan” concept, and my opinion is that we use that so as not to have to confront the obvious since we are utterly helpless and rely on “His goodwill.”
But I didn’t realize your “last word” meant exactly that, since this is my thread and I’m accustomed to deciding that for myself. However, let this be a lesson to both of us: you that when you mean to convey something, that it be crystal clear, and me that I heed my instincts when I see no good coming from discussing things further.
But I must admit that while that’s obvious with liberals, it’s been a long time since I had an in-depth “discussion” with people I respect, and I would rather not have them because I know you’re both well-intentioned, and that while you probably believe you want to understand where I’m coming from, I believe that at this point, you probably wish you hadn’t tried.
God’s “goodwill” notwithstanding, sorry to be so thick, Ted. But I’m still looking for the moral classification on abortion. To reiterate: If it isn’t murder, then under what auspices is it morally reprehensible? I want to know what’s wrong with it…or if we’re traveling down the road of moral relativism, what you think is wrong with it. If you answer the question, I promise to put this thing to bed. And no I’m not sorry we dragged this thing out; we all knew no one’s mind was going to be changed here. But I still think it’s fruitful to discuss such things on occasion between friends. And I do consider you a friend and an ally, Ted. Thanks for indulging me and T.R. See you next time.
I’ll double the thanks, Ted. In fact, it makes me feel quite good to know that despite the fact that we have such vast differences in our theology, you’re still a conservative. Normally I’d assume someone with your ideology would be a far left liberal (please don’t take that as an insult- this has been a learning experience for me, and I appreciate it).
And while I was done, I like Chad’s latest line of thought- if it isn’t murder, why is it morally wrong? Why should it be illegal with repeated instances? I don’t get that at all.
Again, thanks for the viewpoints- I had always assumed it came down to murder vs non-murder; I never realized there were folks with other issues on the subject.
Now let’s keep this thread going, for a record if nothing else. Chad? Have we broken a thread count for MTW yet?
The problem is, you’ve decided that all abortion is murder. Not only do I not feel that way, I can’t believe that given a real, live person sitting in the defendant’s chair having been accused of killing a month-old fetus, that you’d send her away for twenty-five to life?!?
I believe that I have repeatedly drawn a distinction between killing and murder (which would also create a distinction between “morally wrong” and “morally reprehensible”), and what makes repeated abortions outrageous to me is not that the next one is worse than the first in and of itself, but that the next one takes place with the individual in a greater state of awareness, and thus it becomes a greater moral failing. Surely you understand “degree of immorality” where circumstances can cause a little white lie to be horrifically immoral?
Now I know you don’t want to concede any of this, and I won’t concede that God is “all good,” or even that he has the right to dictate what is moral, for that matter. In order to do that, at minimum he’d have to stop with the mind games he’s playing on all of us.
No. I don’t agree all abortion is murder. I believe all man-made abortions are murder. However, I would be willing to accept legislation which made abortion illegal except in cases where the unborn threatened the life of the mother. Such cases make up far less than one half of one percent of the abortions performed in this country annually.
As for sentencing someone to life in prison or some other such stiff penalty for having an abortion, I’m not really sure that is the answer—especially, given the fact attitudes about abortion have changed so dramatically since the Roe court imposed its twisted value system on the states. It will be some time before those attitudes are brought back to where they were before Roe v Wade. What I do know is that women are routinely victimized and exploited for profit by the abortion industry. Therefore, the stiffest penalties should be imposed on those active in the abortion industry itself.
Yes, I do understand degree of immorality. By extension the punishment should, indeed, fit the crime. So at least we understand one another there.
Next, stating that killing a fetus is morally wrong, but not morally reprehensible doesn’t answer my question. Neither does downgrading murder to killing, as though the woman getting an abortion is acting in self-defense. Instead, it changes the classification of the act itself. Since survival is the catalyst for making a distinction between killing and murder, you’ll have to show how the vast majority of man-made abortions in this country are actually for the survival of women as opposed to the convenience of women. Otherwise, the killing classification doesn’t stick.
Beyond that, the question still lingers, albeit in a slightly altered state: Why is “killing” the unborn morally wrong?
T.R.,
As of you and Ted’s comments this morning, this post is officially the most popular. Also, even though we are the only ones discussing this “out loud,” page views for this piece and its subsequent thread have been very respectable. Apparently, lots of people are following the discussion.
I’ll post an ideer on the immorality of abortion. It’s theft.
Let’s face it, as Christians, we believe in life after death. So why is death such a big deal?
When a person is murdered, the life, the experiences they would have lived have been taken from them. They won’t (unless you believe in reincarnation) ever get that chance again. And think about the precedent for this line of reasoning- how many wrongful death civil suits are filed every year, where loss of projected wages are calculated for the benefit of survivors?
Chad,
First, I can’t tell you how sorry I am that I got into all this. You guys may find it useful in some way, but I don’t. It only confirms what I said before – that nothing is going to change.
Now to the particulars.
“As for sentencing someone to life in prison or some other such stiff penalty for having an abortion, I’m not really sure that is the answer—especially, given the fact attitudes about abortion have changed so dramatically since the Roe”
That should have nothing to do with you personally. If you think it’s murder, then it would be inconsistent if not hypocritical to think someone deserves any less penalty for aborting a short-term fetus than for murdering their mother-in-law.
“Since survival is the catalyst for making a distinction between killing and murder, you’ll have to show how the vast majority of man-made abortions in this country are actually for the survival of women”
I wasn’t talking about the survival of the woman, I was talking about the fetus. A fetus capable of surviving outside the womb is a completely different entity to me than a first term fetus.
Killing any unborn is wrong because you are terminating a potential life, but that’s my opinion. I can understand how someone would not feel that a potential life is the same as an actual life. In other words, there is a lot that is arbitrary. All that matters is that unless some reasonable compromise can be found, a lot more abortions will occur than need to.
Trog,
“When a person is murdered, the life, the experiences they would have lived have been taken from them.”
it’s the old “if a tree falls in the forest” question. First, you don’t know that any given fetus will survive or what that life will be like. You assume that life is worth living. For my part, had I been given the choice to live like this, not only would I have declined, I’ve have punched God in the mouth for suggesting it.
In addition, if you take something one doesn’t know one has and never will, has he lost anything? I think that, at best, you can argue that others and the world in general -may- have lost something, but that’s an unprovable assumption.
Regardless of how these latest comments are received, I think I’ve explained it all to the best of my ability
Your comments are well received as always, Ted.
And you’re right. If abortion is murder, then the punishment should fit the crime. The problem is, people equate what is legal with what is moral. The Supreme Court created this mess when they imposed their will on the people of the United States and on the unborn child. What I’m saying is the culture has largely been conditioned to accept abortion as moral or as not being a serious moral wrong. Therefore, I’m wondering what the legality will be given the fact that those who legislate from the bench are responsible for engendering this laissez faire approach to life in the womb. Should Roe be overturned, it will take at least a generation to reverse the trend. Given those complexities, the court may have to take that into consideration when handing down sentences on those who abort with impunity.
Yes, I know you were talking about the fetus. You’re missing my point, I think. In order to fit the termination of that potential life into the “killing” category you need justification and there’s no justification unless we’re talking about self-defense. Conversely, murder deals with the taking of innocent human life…sounds like abortion to me.
As for why it’s wrong to kill the unborn, you say it’s because we’re dealing with a potential life. But you also stated that it was a matter of “opinion.” You also state that there is much that is arbitrary here, to which I ask, then why impose any punishment on the woman? This is just moral relativism, Ted. If it’s arbitrary, then you have no right whatsoever to impose your sliding scale sentence on the woman. NONE! After all, to her it may be perfectly acceptable and good to have an abortion any time she feels the need.
To recap:
(1)The criteria given by the pro-abortion movement for induction into humanity can be applied to already born humans. And if these criteria are valid, then we are all humanoids from the deep and not worthy of rights of personhood. To wit: Some of us are larger than others; Some of us are more developed than others; Some of us have changed and continue to change environment; and some of us aren’t viable on our own. Therefore, if we aren’t willing to impose the same criteria on ourselves, we shouldn’t be imposing them on the fetus. Of course, the well adjusted among us would never go there, because underneath at all we know how absurd the notion is. Yet, this is precisely the justification given by the pro-abortion movement. All in all, it’s just another pathetic excuse to murder, (or to use your word, “kill”) innocents in the womb.
(2)Murder applies to innocent human beings. Killing can apply to anything and everything living and always has survival as its catalyst. Makes no difference if you’re killing for food, or self-defense, it derives the same way: Survival. Since taking the life of an unborn child, at least as far as the general practice goes in the abortion industry, is a matter of innocent life being taken, the practice most definitely fits the category of Murder.
(3)If the status of the fetus is up for grabs, then there is no principled reason to impose ANY sentence on the woman who chooses to abort. To do so is inconsistent with the relativistic paradigm. Additionally, if the status of the fetus is based on a type of moral relativism, then there is no way in which we can say that it is wrong to kill the fetus, since morality is subjective, just as the standard of humanity is subjective.
Ted, if you doubt the value of all human life, then I totally see why you are opposed to abortion as Chad and I are.
I wonder if Stephen Hawking ever wishes he had been aborted? Surely being confined, immobile his entire life, with that humongous brain of his is a real bummer. Think how aggravating it must be that he can’t pick things up and show the rest of us stupid monkies how to do it right.
But should Stephen have been aborted?
And what if someone is a total slacker, and never does anything in their life. Should we travel back in time and abort them? Taking away that right to live is down right unAmerican- we all have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In all of this Ted, I find it interesting that you don’t use the same rationalizations for abortion the pro-deathers do. Or do you? Do they think like you? I thought they were just supporting a woman’s right to be a ho, without repercussions.
I believe we’ve exhausted this thread fellas. I think Ted realized this already and has abandoned the chase. But I want to thank him for the patient, open, frank, and cordial manner in which he participated in this in-house debate. I also want to thank T.R. for his incisive comments and moral support. Abortion is always a potentially explosive topic. So it’s refreshing when those with varying mileage can sit down and discuss it without acting like children. I am signing off for now.