ON ABORTION
The abortion controversy is predicated on a falsehood by both sides: both pro-abortion (pro-choice) and anti-abortion (pro-life) advocates say it is about when life begins. But, truthfully, there is no disagreement on that.
For the anti-abortionists, life begins at conception; Christians often base it on their reading of the Bible, particularly Luke 1:41.
For the pro-abortionists, who claim to promote Science, life begins at conception, for at the first division of the cell, it can only grow to be a human being, not a fish, or cat, or bird.
So for pro-abortionists, the question really is "When is it okay to kill a human being?" Philosopher Peter Singer has suggested that children can be ethically killed even after birth. The official policy of the Democratic party is anytime before birth.
This opens a sticky wicket for the pro-abortionists. A recent National Review article by Jay Nordlinger highlights the dilemma. A woman in Ohio gave birth to her baby, then killed it. She has received a sentence of life without parole in prison. Had she had a partial birth abortion just minutes before giving birth, she would be innocent of any crime. That is hard to reconcile.
Anti-abortionists have a different issue. For them the question is "When does God place the soul?" Is it at conception, or when the embryo implants in the womb? There is even a Catholic priest who posits that the soul is not placed until 2 weeks after conception; his argument is that until that point, the embryo can divide and form identical twins, which would also (he claims) divide the soul.
The reason anti-abortionists avoid this issue is it complicates in vitro fertilization and cloning matters. If there is no soul until the embryo is in the womb, then destroying in vitro embryos is not destroying souls, thus there would be no reason to oppose such practices.
Bill Clinton said it right, but didn't try to make it right: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." He got the 2nd and somewhat the 1st, but ignored that 3rd qualifier.
My position is that legal abortion should be allowed up to the time that the baby/embryo/fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival outside the womb. After that, the baby/embryo/fetus can be delivered and medical care administered for its survival. Eventually, we will be able to "grow" test-tube babies, at which point abortion would cease to be legal, with the usual exceptions of rape or incest (life of the mother at that point would most likely not be an issue).
Another position of the pro-abortionists needs addressing: their insistence that "a woman has the right to decide what to do to her body", i.e., have an abortion. If, as they insist, the decision to abort or not is solely with the woman, then by what logic is the man responsible for child support after the child is born? She who is solely responsible for the birth should then be solely responsible for the consequences of that birth. That view should renounce child support as unfair.
If the man is held jointly responsible for the conception, and jointly responsible for the child after birth, by what logic has he no joint responsibility in the abortion decision? Logically, he should be jointly responsible for ALL pre-natal costs and actions, insomuch as possible. The human life belongs to both.
The abortion controversy is predicated on a falsehood by both sides: both pro-abortion (pro-choice) and anti-abortion (pro-life) advocates say it is about when life begins. But, truthfully, there is no disagreement on that.
For the anti-abortionists, life begins at conception; Christians often base it on their reading of the Bible, particularly Luke 1:41.
For the pro-abortionists, who claim to promote Science, life begins at conception, for at the first division of the cell, it can only grow to be a human being, not a fish, or cat, or bird.
So for pro-abortionists, the question really is "When is it okay to kill a human being?" Philosopher Peter Singer has suggested that children can be ethically killed even after birth. The official policy of the Democratic party is anytime before birth.
This opens a sticky wicket for the pro-abortionists. A recent National Review article by Jay Nordlinger highlights the dilemma. A woman in Ohio gave birth to her baby, then killed it. She has received a sentence of life without parole in prison. Had she had a partial birth abortion just minutes before giving birth, she would be innocent of any crime. That is hard to reconcile.
Anti-abortionists have a different issue. For them the question is "When does God place the soul?" Is it at conception, or when the embryo implants in the womb? There is even a Catholic priest who posits that the soul is not placed until 2 weeks after conception; his argument is that until that point, the embryo can divide and form identical twins, which would also (he claims) divide the soul.
The reason anti-abortionists avoid this issue is it complicates in vitro fertilization and cloning matters. If there is no soul until the embryo is in the womb, then destroying in vitro embryos is not destroying souls, thus there would be no reason to oppose such practices.
Bill Clinton said it right, but didn't try to make it right: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." He got the 2nd and somewhat the 1st, but ignored that 3rd qualifier.
My position is that legal abortion should be allowed up to the time that the baby/embryo/fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival outside the womb. After that, the baby/embryo/fetus can be delivered and medical care administered for its survival. Eventually, we will be able to "grow" test-tube babies, at which point abortion would cease to be legal, with the usual exceptions of rape or incest (life of the mother at that point would most likely not be an issue).
Another position of the pro-abortionists needs addressing: their insistence that "a woman has the right to decide what to do to her body", i.e., have an abortion. If, as they insist, the decision to abort or not is solely with the woman, then by what logic is the man responsible for child support after the child is born? She who is solely responsible for the birth should then be solely responsible for the consequences of that birth. That view should renounce child support as unfair.
If the man is held jointly responsible for the conception, and jointly responsible for the child after birth, by what logic has he no joint responsibility in the abortion decision? Logically, he should be jointly responsible for ALL pre-natal costs and actions, insomuch as possible. The human life belongs to both.