Here at THL we have been discussing the abortion issue very frequently of late, so I want to turn your attention to an excellent blog post by THL co-founder and former contributor, Ben Bryan at his new philosophical blog: Casting Out Callicles.(Ben is a philosopher by trade, in addition to his background in political science. I highly recommend you subscribe to and read his enlightening work.)
In a recent article, Ben outlines the fundamental questions of the abortion controversy and explains why the typical labels we use for "both sides" are inaccurate (in addition to being unnecessarily accusatory)...
"We have many terms that we use about particular issues that keep us from getting to the heart of the matter at hand. Today I want to talk about one particular issue about which we seem to have a great deal of trouble being reasonable: abortion.Talking about abortion, we use two terms, "pro-choice" and "pro-life," which seem to me to have very little to do with the real issue. They are often used not so much as to communicate clearly as to subtly condemn one's opponent. By claiming to be "pro-choice" one may subtly suggest that one's opponent is really just a tyrant who doesn't like people controlling their own bodies. By claiming to be "pro-life" one might suggest that one's opponent cares less about life than his or her own freedom to choice and really just wants to live in a world without consequences, especially consequences for sexual activity. Of course, the fact of the matter is that many people just aren't motivated by the things these terms are sometimes used to insinuate. I'm sure some people are. But it is not fair to label everyone who has a particular position on a policy by the irrationality of some of its supporters.
On top of being implicitly accusatory, these terms miss the point of the discussion in important ways. As a result of missing the point and framing the debate wrongly, these terms cause us to miss other possible positions. So why don't we just start over? Let's come up with a new way of talking. And when I say "let's", I mean the "'s." I want you to help me out! I've got some ideas about what positions are possible and how to frame the abortion debate. But I need some help in two ways. First of all, I want help naming these new positions in ways that are more accurate and less accusatory than the traditional terms. Second, I want your thoughts on the positions themselves and whether it is clear what they are and whether I've still left anything out. So please read about each of the four possibilities I propose below and let me know what you think.
The following seems to me a helpful set of questions to frame the debate:
- (1) What is a fetus?
- (2) What rights does the fetus have, given the answer to (1)?
- (3) How do rights the mother has relate to the rights the fetus has?
Given these questions as the framework, here are a few possible positions:"
Read the rest of the article here.
