here’s a strange twist: i recently realized that supporting abortion can be a reasonable belief.
imagine for a moment that you believe animals have souls. would that change your eating habits?
it would mine.
but as it is, you probably don’t believe that they have souls, and you probably have no problem eating a juicy steak or chicken sandwich.
my point is that everything hinges on that original belief. on the subject of abortion, if i could convince myself that the newly fertilized were nothing more than a soulless blob of tissue, than the right to abortion is easier to stomach (there are still arguments against it, i realize, but that would certainly take a lot of wind out of the sails).
don’t get me wrong. i’m not switching sides. but i think it’s a good idea to look at it the other way every once in awhile.
on a related note: have you ever noticed that people that support a “woman’s right to choose” also tend to support things like animal rights and “save the earth” propaganda? we call that ironic.
but isn’t it also a little ironic that people who purport to recognize the value of every piece of God’s creation, no matter how recently conceived, also tend to have the least regard for animals and the rest of creation?
nic 8:15 am on April 26, 2008 Permalink
test. comments should be working now….
Tyson 12:02 pm on April 26, 2008 Permalink
So here’s the thing, Nic. I think it goes without saying that we as humans automatically value certain kinds of life above others. I think most of us would be hesitant to kill a puppy or a kitty cat, but wouldn’t think twice about killing a fly or a bug. On top of that, I think that most humans value the life of humans above all other forms. You might get in some trouble for killing a dog, but you’ll get life in prison for killing a person. All of this to say, I think that it’s in the very nature of humans to value human life (in a general sense, of course… I mean there are a few exceptions of serial killers and the like), but I think there is definitely something inside people that makes us value the lives of our own kind, which I definitely think is there for a reason. I think it’s easier to justify killing someone that you can’t see or communicate with, but that doesn’t make the life any less valuable, it just removes us from having to deal with it as directly. Just some thoughts.
nic 11:17 pm on April 26, 2008 Permalink
@Tyson
valid points, all. i’m not trying to build a case for the acceptance of abortion; i’m trying to build a case for not regarding those who do support it as out-and-out murderers or wackos or whatever.
Tyson 12:03 am on April 27, 2008 Permalink
Hey, I mean I totally get what you’re trying to say, and I think what you mean is that they aren’t knowingly murderers, but technically anyone who takes a human life has committed murder. By the way, I really like the look of your new blog. Very web 2.0 of you, dawg.
Kony 8:52 pm on May 5, 2008 Permalink
“Anyone who takes a human life has committed murder”?
But that begs the question.
Pro-choice would say “Anyone who deprives a woman of self-determination has committed oppression.”
The debate is always rigged by the person who frames the “central” question. Which is exactly Nic’s point.
Nic, are you hating on feminists and environmentalists with your little scare quotes? I’d better keep my Berkeley friends away from you.
Kony 8:54 pm on May 5, 2008 Permalink
oh, and who is “we,” exactly?
I am curious to know!
Ben 10:22 am on June 16, 2008 Permalink
I agree it is a little ironic when pro-choice folks also advocate animal rights issues. If I understand your point correctly, they are convinced that the tissue that might become a fetus has no soul while, at the same time, are convinced that animals do.
This whole topic is amazing to me. I remember protesting abortion on the side of a busy Atlanta street when I was a freshman in high school, but now that I’m much older, I’m amazed that there is anything to argue about. Of course, I’m a new father, so I’m a bit sensitive, but really, is the pro-choice/pro-life argument really about a woman’s right to choose? It seems more like a desperate attempt to maintain an illusion of freedom from responsibility. No, I think the “argument” lies with abortion’s constitutional status: is it unconstitutional to ban abortion? This is a more interesting question to me because if it is unconstitutional, it exposes a weakness in our constitution (from a Christian standpoint). The foundation of our government which so many regard as a sort of Bible, was drafted by men and therefor is prone to weakness. I suspect, as any good American, that it is the best men could do (arguably, yes). However, I find it interesting when the Church adapts the US Constitution more than it does its own Bible. In other words, where, in our everyday life, are the boundaries between man’s kingdom and God’s? The issue of abortion is one of those clear boundaries, especially if we say pro-life is unconstitutional.
I appreciate your effort to see things from the other side. As one who tends to land on the conservative side of such issues, I certainly want to be well informed of what I oppose. That isn’t always possibly, I admit, but efforts can be made. Great post, Nic.