As we discussed yesterday in class, fact must be established before values and policies can be formed. Of course, this is an ideal situation and often not the case. There are many times where values are formed based off of untrue facts, or just off of a different understanding of the true facts. More frequently, it's a question of no one knowing the facts. Then we all form fuzzy opinions and fuzzy solutions to a problem that we don't actually know that much about.
I want to talk about the complexity of the Abortion issue in this context. Disclaimer: I am not, however, going to state my own opinion or engage in a discussion about the actual content of this issue. I know it's a touchy subject-so lets all work together to avoid vicious discourse.
There are a lot of issues where the argument doesn't just boil down to one sole concept. However, in the issue of abortion, it very much does. I think for the most part we all agree that taking a life is wrong (or at least I'm going to make that assumption for my argument's purpose) and whatever can be done to stop it should be done. So when we look at the two different sides of debate (which I believe are more complex that pro-abortion or anti-abortion) is it really that the "pro-choice" people are killers? Is it really that the "pro-life" people are the only ones defending life? Both sides are creating assertions against the other side based on their own belief of when life begins.
"Pro-choice" people believe life begins later than "Pro-life" people (for the most part). Can the pro-choice people say that the "pro-life" people aren't really pro-life at all if their own definition of life is so much later? Can "pro-life" people say that "pro-choice" people are okay with destroying life if their own definition of when life begins is so much earlier? It's a fine line.
So what about birth control or condoms? Or Plan B (the morning after pill)? Is the union of sperm and egg the moment that life begins? Is it the embryo? Very fine lines must be drawn in order for policy to be created.
How can we proceed? What do we do in cases of rape, or when the mothers' life is in danger? If life is established so late in the pregnancy, can mothers terminate their pregnancy if they're not happy with the gender? Our fuzzy values and our fuzzy policy making on the subject isn't making the answers very clear.
So the beginning of life is what it boils down to. How do we proceed?
I think that after taking this step of truly defining the problem as boiling down to a matter of fact, that needs to become the focus of discussion. The two sides should come to some conclusion as to how to rationally define "life" or the beginning of it. Real cases need to be made for each, instead of backing fact up with values.
ReplyDelete