Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #2
Explanation here
Topic: Abortion
May 14, 1999
Knee Jerk Arguments
I have decided to look at several arguments here separate from the more important issues I deal with in other articles. I consider these arguments to be rather unsubstantial but I hear them or they are implied quite often. It seems they are part of some sort of knee-jerk or automatic response instead of a well thought out argument.
Let's start with how can someone be against abortion when the Supreme Court says it is legal? Well first of all, we are dealing with an issue of morality, since when are the Supreme Court's rulings the arbitrator of what is moral or not? One must remember that the Supreme Court at one time ruled that outlawing slavery was unconstitutional. Certainly we do not agree that therefore slavery is a morally correct choice to make. Let us abandon right here and now the notion that if something is legal that means it is morally correct. As for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, I will examine that in a future article.
Some might argue that my reasons for being pro-life are because I am a man and I only want to control women and therefore I cannot be objective. Well now, certainly a women's desire to control her own body is a strong motivating factor and using the same logic one could say that women cannot possibly be objective. Now these ad-hominem attacks haven't accomplished much except to shut out the entire human race from discussing this extremely important issue.
Others may say you shouldn't force your religious views on someone, that our country is based on this principle. But just because the "mainstream" media chooses to focus only on those who state their pro-life views in mostly religious terms and convictions does not mean there are no other reasons or arguments for the pro-life view. Furthermore, I do not feel that having a religious basis for a belief automatically invalidates and limits that belief to only the personal. I do recognize, however, that presenting the pro-life arguments solely in this manner may be a mistake. After all, if someone does not hold the same religious convictions why would they listen? I therefore present the secular and non-religious support for my convictions to avoid what may be a stumbling block for many. Believe it or not though, there is diversity within the pro-life movement. There are pro-life atheists, feminists, gays and libertarians to name a few. People with Master's Degrees are even pro-life. I suppose however it is easier to paint all of us with one broad stroke as religious and uneducated instead of facing the facts or the rational arguments that we offer.
In discussions I have also been told that you shouldn't force your morals on someone else. This is entirely incorrect. Is that not the affect of laws? Certainly we are making a moral statement when we as a majority make laws against stealing, murder, assault etc. I also think that perhaps this is actually just a confusing way of restating the religious objection and that has already been addressed.
I hope the reader can now begin to think more deeply about this issue. We can not allow ourselves to make important decisions based on the dangerous act of repeating glib and pithy little unexamined arguments. Such behavior will only create a mindset that will accept anything as long as it sounds pleasing or because it has been repeated enough times. The truth should be more important to us than that.
Topic: Abortion
May 14, 1999
Knee Jerk Arguments
I have decided to look at several arguments here separate from the more important issues I deal with in other articles. I consider these arguments to be rather unsubstantial but I hear them or they are implied quite often. It seems they are part of some sort of knee-jerk or automatic response instead of a well thought out argument.
Let's start with how can someone be against abortion when the Supreme Court says it is legal? Well first of all, we are dealing with an issue of morality, since when are the Supreme Court's rulings the arbitrator of what is moral or not? One must remember that the Supreme Court at one time ruled that outlawing slavery was unconstitutional. Certainly we do not agree that therefore slavery is a morally correct choice to make. Let us abandon right here and now the notion that if something is legal that means it is morally correct. As for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, I will examine that in a future article.
Some might argue that my reasons for being pro-life are because I am a man and I only want to control women and therefore I cannot be objective. Well now, certainly a women's desire to control her own body is a strong motivating factor and using the same logic one could say that women cannot possibly be objective. Now these ad-hominem attacks haven't accomplished much except to shut out the entire human race from discussing this extremely important issue.
Others may say you shouldn't force your religious views on someone, that our country is based on this principle. But just because the "mainstream" media chooses to focus only on those who state their pro-life views in mostly religious terms and convictions does not mean there are no other reasons or arguments for the pro-life view. Furthermore, I do not feel that having a religious basis for a belief automatically invalidates and limits that belief to only the personal. I do recognize, however, that presenting the pro-life arguments solely in this manner may be a mistake. After all, if someone does not hold the same religious convictions why would they listen? I therefore present the secular and non-religious support for my convictions to avoid what may be a stumbling block for many. Believe it or not though, there is diversity within the pro-life movement. There are pro-life atheists, feminists, gays and libertarians to name a few. People with Master's Degrees are even pro-life. I suppose however it is easier to paint all of us with one broad stroke as religious and uneducated instead of facing the facts or the rational arguments that we offer.
In discussions I have also been told that you shouldn't force your morals on someone else. This is entirely incorrect. Is that not the affect of laws? Certainly we are making a moral statement when we as a majority make laws against stealing, murder, assault etc. I also think that perhaps this is actually just a confusing way of restating the religious objection and that has already been addressed.
I hope the reader can now begin to think more deeply about this issue. We can not allow ourselves to make important decisions based on the dangerous act of repeating glib and pithy little unexamined arguments. Such behavior will only create a mindset that will accept anything as long as it sounds pleasing or because it has been repeated enough times. The truth should be more important to us than that.
Author: Mark K. Sprengel | 8:57:00 PM |
|
| 
Save To ~ Social Bookmarks | My Bookstore |
