I came across a website the other day that deals with what it describes as 'religious tolerance' in the matter of abortion. One of the points it makes is that our fondness for dichotomy means that we simplify the issue of abortion into two camps, pro-abortion and pro-life and by so doing we misunderstand the complexities of the subject. Examples it uses are us vs them, religious versus secular worldviews, theists versus atheists etc. The reality, it goes on to say, is that there are at least four categories of views on abortion with a subsequent host of sub-categories. This got me thinking - is this true? Is it a matter of for or against or is it more complex? Is this sort of argument simply wishy-washy liberalism or does it have merit?
Well, let's look at it. For the purposes of this discussion we will confine ourselves to the four different viewpoints identified.
The pro-life movement - this view holds that human life is generated at the point of contraception. There are some conflicts in this group with regard to issues such as danger to the mother's life, rape, incest etc and there is no doubt that this gives rise to some disagreement within this group. We can note that most religious views can be found here.
The anti-abortion movement - these are people who hold pro-life views but who are prepared to adopt extreme tactics (violence, threats etc) to see their view imposed.
The pro-choice movement - this view teaches that the foetus becomes human at some point in its gestation. Usually this will be identified as the point where sentience is achieved.
The pro-abortion movement - the article identifies this view only to say that it does not exist. A strange 'fourth view', I have to say.
So what can we say about this analysis? Well, firstly, it is clear that the article itself admits that there are not four points, merely three. Therefore, let's discount point four altogether - it seems to have been created simply to add weight to the argument. Secondly, let's look at the difference between viewpoints numbers 2 and 3. On closer inspection it becomes clear that there is no difference in viewpoint simply in strategy, one option preferring to remain within the confines of the legal system, the other to do 'whatever it takes'. In terms of is 'is abortion right or wrong?' there is no difference.
So, in reality, there are, in fact, only two viewpoints that you can take on abortion. It is either right or it is wrong. This is fairly obvious when you think about it as, given that both viewpoints disallow murder, the fundamental difference between the respective viewpoints is disagreement as to the point at which we become human. Ironically, the only complex issues arise within the pro-life camp and concern the question of whether there are circumstances where we can be justified in taking a life. (eg victims of rape, danger to the mother etc). This is made so complex because, in the case of rape, for instance, the foetus itself can also be said to be a victim of rape - it is certainly totally innocent, and if you believe that you are human at conception then surely (if you are pro-life)then you are promoting institutionalised murder. Really, everything flows from this. My own feeling is that even this is not central to the issue and that if you believe the foetus is another human being, you can never allow abortion. Does that sound extreme? Possibly, but for me it is the only choice that makes sense.
Having struggled through this argument, I came to realise that the aim of the article is not to debate the merits or otherwise of abortion but to encourage consensus. Personally, I agree with tolerance but I do not agree with consensus for consensus sake - such an approach is the road to social and moral chaos. My final conclusions, therefore, are that the article in question is indeed more liberal wishy-washy than worthwhile contribution to the debate. It seems to argue that we should allow everyone to think what they want to think and not call them names. This sounds great and even-handed but the truth is that societies must have some shared values that the majority agree should be enforced. This argument is not about whether we should let everybody think what they want to think and act as they want to act but about the nature of the values we share.
An abortion story by mike king
Foetal Distress - against abortion
沒有留言:
張貼留言