Whenever I suggest that it is possible to believe that abortion is morally wrong but should not be illegal, pro-lifers generally assume that I'm nuts. However, the reason they think I'm nuts is that they've missed a critically important distinction between two different strands of anti-abortion argument.
In his book "Life's Dominion," Ronald Dworkin explained that the "right to life" argument and the "sanctity of life" argument are very different. The former argument relies on the premise that fetal life has "rights." The latter argument relies on the premise that fetal life is "sacred."
Dworkin conceded that the right to life argument justifies criminal prohibition of abortion, but only if (or when) its underlying premise is true. However, he also argued that a "rights bearing entity" had to be a "someone" and further argued that the premise that early-stage fetal entities constitute "someones" is very problematic.
Dworkin then argued that the "sanctity of life argument" is a more plausible basis for objecting to abortion at all stages of a pregnancy. He explained what it means for a thing to be sacred, and how and why things come to be considered sacred. Dworkin also conceded the reasonableness of holding human life, at all stages, to be sacred, and further conceeded that desecrating sacred things (without sufficient justification) might well be immoral. (The professional photographer who built a fire below the famous Delicate Arch in Utah, scorching the surrounding red-rock in the process, is a perfect example of profit driven profanity rising to the level of immorality).
However, Dworkin also explained that views about what is sacred, or what the status of something's being sacred requires of moral agents, are reasonably diverse and inherently religeous, making them poor foundations for imposing legal prohibitions.
In coming posts, I'm going to evaluate the right to life argument, beginning with an explanation of the concept "right." I'll be upfront in saying that I think the right to life argument fails with regards to the earliest stages of fetal life. In a subsequent post, I will evaluate the sanctity of life argument, which I think establishes the imorality of many abortions, but which fails as a justification for legal prohibitions.
I'll try to post more regularly as well. I've been way too lazy this week.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
3 comments:
Your approach suggests that you consider legal abortion the default, requiring no support at all. It further suggests that you consider the only plausible arguments against legal abortion to be either sanctity of life or right to life arguments. Neither presupposition is acceptable to a well-informed opponent of legal abortion, so if you continue on the path you've laid out here, you'll convince nobody but those who already agree with you.
I can make sound arguments against abortion from a pure public policy standpoint, a woman's health standpoint, a societal health standpoint, a socio-economic standpoint, a pure economic standpoint... you get the idea. Right to life and sanctity of life are far, far from the only reasons to reject legal abortion as a public policy.
Furthermore, I can't imagine any decent human being, let alone a Christian, assuming that a procedure that takes a life is the DEFAULT, to be accepted as proper without justification if there is no dispositive objection. That's just backwards.
Phil,
Thanks for your comment. If you'll reread my post, you'll see that the ONLY issue I discuss in the post is whether it is possible to believe that abortion is morally wrong, but should nonetheless be legal.
My argument was that the reason pro-lifers think that position is "nuts" is because THEY assume that abortion is morally wrong because it violates a person's right to life - e.g. they assume that abortion is murder. My point was that a person can also believe that abortion is immorally profane because it desecrates what is sacred, even if they don't think abortion is murder.
Nothing I said suggests that I consider "legal abortion the default requiring no support at all." I WILL cop to the belief that all limitations on liberty imposed by the government have to be rationally justified - but that's merely a restatement of the due process clause as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. I will also cop to the view that the more fundamental the liberty at stake, the greater the government's interest in restricting that liberty has to be to for the restriction to be justified.
Also, nothing I said suggests that the "right to life" and "sanctity of life" arguments are the only plausible types of arguments that can be made with reagrds to abortion policy. If you disagree, point to the statement in which I suggest that these arguments are the only available arguments.
My only point was to SUGGEST (I have yet to offer proof) that there are grounds for opposing abortion MORALLY that do not justify LEGAL prohibitions.
Best wishes,
Joe H.
Ok, I see where I erred. I missed the importance of your first paragraph. Sorry about that.
For what it's worth, this opponent of generally legal abortion (I detest the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice") does not think the position you articulate is nuts. I think it's wrong, but I don't think it's nuts.
Post a Comment