October 17, 2010

Andy Moore - Abortion Is A Woman's Choice Like Rape Is A Man's Choice

Andy Moore has an in-depth analysis of the "choice" statement. Find more videos of the abortion issue on his site StarStudded SuperStep.



Posted by Monte Harms at 6:40 AM
Labels: , ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "choice" that pro-lifers are talking about is NOT the choice to abort or not, but rather the choice to believe abortion is ethically justifiable or not.

Abortion of a pre-born baby to rape of a post-born woman. The two are only on the same moral plane if one first _a priori_ agrees that a pre-born baby is a human life in the same sense that a post-born woman is.

Not all religions and ethical systems agree that abortion is wrong. Nor do all secular belief systems. There is at present no ethical consensus that spans religions or society. Hence whether or not abortion is wrong is a matter of religious or personal opinion.

On the other hand, virtually all religions, as well as secular society at large, consider rape wrong. There may be debates about what specific cases count as rape, but very little debate about whether or not rape itself is wrong.

17/10/10 9:49 PM
Andy said...

I don't know about you anon, but I do not want to live in a society where morality is defined by what the majority of religions and ethical systems agree upon.

If society/the World holds that abortion is immoral, but rape is moral, would you be ok with that?

18/10/10 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...

But you do live in such a society, assuming you live in a democracy that includes freedom of religion as one of its principles.

All logic arguments eventually have to come back to some sort of starting assumptions about the world, life, and sources of authority. In a democracy we can't impose a single set of starting assumptions on people. When we can't agree on logic or starting assumptions, we have no choice but to make decisions by consensus. If we then find that there is no consensus that action X is prohibited, then we have little option but to leave to each person to decide whether or not they can _in good conscience_ do action X.

Suppose for example you are Roman Catholic. You believe that human life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. Roman Catholicism only believes in self-defense if the attacker is intentionally trying to kill and a baby certainly isn't doing that. Thus abortion is always wrong, EVEN when the mother's life is in danger. But how do you _know_ that life begins at conception and that self-defense is only allowed if the attacker is intentionally trying to kill you? If you are a faithful Roman Catholic, you will base this on the Catholic interpretation of the bible, Church teachings, and papal pronouncements.

Now suppose you Buddhist. The Bible and the Pope aren't sources of truth for you, so any ethical argument based on the "Church says" or "the Bible (as read by the Church)" or "the Pope says" won't be convincing. In fact, Buddhism has an entirely different way of approaching the question of abortion than Roman Catholics. To Buddhists, life doesn't begin with a body not does it end with the body's destruction, rather the self moves from physical being to physical incarnation. Now ending the self's connection to a physical manifestation is a very serious matter. so abortion is discouraged in Buddhism. On the other hand, compassion is very important to Buddhism, nearly everthing depends on circumstance, and certainty about anything that depends on circumstance is considered an illusion. Thus even though abortion is discouraged, it isn't viewed as unconditionally wrong and the decision is left to the individual.

Now suppose you are Jewish. Your sources of knowing are a long 3000 year discussion of ethics found in the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud and later Rabbinic works. These are all authoritative sources of knowledge to Jews, but not to non-Jews. Based on these sources, abortion is permitted and even required if the mother's life is in danger. This is true even if the danger is "only" a risk of suicide. Why? Because (a) Jewish ethics believes that people can kill in self defense even if the attacker is not intending to kill, but merely acting in a way that would make death the probable outcome. A baby that threatens its mother's life therefore can be killed (b) a baby is life in the making, but does not achieve the full status of life until it can existence separate from the mother. One does not sacrifice actual life for life in the making. Hence if the mother's life is clearly threatened, some would argue that abortion is not merely permitted, but in fact required.

Without giving up democracy or freedom of religion, can you really think of an alternative to consensus or freedom of choice ? How else do you propose to resolve a situation where one religion says abortion is required and another says it is prohibited? (as in a threat to the life of the mother).

19/10/10 6:01 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)