Is this debate really closed =). Well, assuming that it isnt, Id like to interject with a logical argument on abortions morality and an opinion on abortions legality.
I usually stay away from debates like these because it tends to bring out the worst in people whether aligned to the right or left. I consider myself a political centrist, although I guess I do often take the conservative viewpoint.
--
It's necessary to separate the morality and legality of an issue. I believe that abortion is morally wrong (my reasons are below) but that it may be necessary for the time being (wrong but necessary isnt a novel concept just war theory takes a similar position). It is quite wrong to say that abortion is a religious opinion, as some people here have been arguing. Please follow the argument below before responding.
Morality
This is not a novel argument, but it hasnt been brought up here and Ive yet to see it debunked:
One of the few things that people here seem to be agreed on (and rightly so) is the fact that
its currently difficult, if not impossible, to definitively determine in an uncontroversial way whether the unborn entity is a human being or not. There are intelligent and informed people, both scientists and physicians, on either side of the debate pulling for their respective sides. It would be presumptuous and probably erroneous to entirely discredit either side (and this is true for most political issues). Roe vs. Wade itself acknowledges this (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113 - Section IX B). However, for the issue of abortion, this stalemate is exactly what makes resolving the debate possible.
Given that there is no uncontroversial way to determine whether the unborn is human or not, it is morally impermissible to abort the unborn.
Two common examples:
1) You are a building demolitions manager. You are contracted to knock down a building. Two mobs picket your office. One mob tells you that the building is empty. One mob tells you that there is someone in the building. It then becomes morally impermissible to demolish that building, knowing that it is possible (within reason) that a human may be inside.
2) You are hunting and hear movement in the bushes. You are obliged to not shoot until you are absolutely certain that it is not a human in those bushes (Hah! This sheds an ironic light on Cheneys hunting accident). It would be morally irresponsible to risk the loss of a human life.
Put philosophically:
Abortion kills something. What is debated is whether what abortion kills is more akin to a tissue cell (or tumor, parasite, etc.) or a human being. Before taking life or liberty away from something (whether it be a skin growth or human), prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the entity is either guilty or not human. In democratic law, prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a human entity is guilty before taking away life or liberty. In the case of abortion, prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an innocent entity is not human before taking away life, because it is that humanity that gives the entity natural rights to life and liberty in the first place.
Put simply:
You must err on the side of safety.
In light of this argument, it is less accurate to say that abortion is morally impermissible and more accurate to say that the unborn must be considered human. Therefore, abortion is not immoral as long as the unborn is afforded the same natural rights as a born human is. For example, if both the mother and her unborn child are certain to die during the birth of the child, it is morally permissible to abort the child. In this case, the unborn childs life is being treated with equal respect as the mothers life.
This logic, of course, is open to argument. But any line of reason against this has to be argued logically. Ways to do this include:
Proving beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn is not a human being.
This is what debate has raged over for years. Most reasonable people agree that you cannot prove that one side or the other is wrong. However, from a persuasive inertia perspective, its actually easier for the pro-choicers to bring pro-lifers their way than vice-versa, since being pro-choice seems more convenient and because reasonable doubt is really such a soft term, especially when used outside the court. But Id encourage integrity when considering issues like abortion.
Proving that it is morally permissible to kill an innocent human being.
The killing of an innocent human just flies every-which-way in the face of common morality. That shouldnt need explanation. Some would try to prove that the unborn is not innocent but this reasoning doesnt hold much promise since: 1) by the time the argument of whether or not the unborn is innocent begins, it has already been conceded that the unborn is human, since you cant label a tissue cell guilty; 2) innocence is presumed until proven guilty; and 3) proving beyond reasonable doubt that an unborn child is guilty of something deserving death is rather difficult, since the death penalty usually requires a conscious choice.
Again, this argument is open to rational arguments. But please, if you are going to argue this, counter-argue the logic of this argument rather than form a novel argument (no red herrings please). Otherwise, I believe it stands that abortion is morally wrong.
Legality
The legality of abortion is an entirely different debate, since legality takes into account social consequence and other effects peripheral to the morality of an act. I confess that Im nothing of an expert on this matter (or anything else, really) and that there are many more people in the public arena far, far more knowledgeable and qualified to address this issue.
I do know that if abortions become illegal, pro-lifers (and pro-choicers) must be more willing to adopt, orphanages must be held to a higher level of care, and I could go on and on. I also know that it is possible that millions of innocent human beings are being killed each year. And that possibility alone, for the same reasons that I am going to D.C. next Sunday for the Darfur genocide rally, is enough for me to feel that abortion should eventually be made illegal. This, of course, is just my opinion. I could quote studies and expert opinions all day long, but Im sure that the other side has just as many studies and expert opinions that are just as persuasive.
So in summary. Abortion: Morally wrong. Legally questionable. While people do immoral things everyday without the government stepping in, I would like those who would use abortion as a form of birth control to know that aborting an unborn child is almost always morally wrong.
Oookkkkaayy. Well thats enough for today. Im going to try to stay off of this thread for as long as possible so I dont get sucked in.
Yay I wrote a textbook.
The first reference to the Nazis. A sure sign of a necrotic thread. It won't be long now...
