The Abortion Debate

Quick note on Kosovo, in answer to certain questions: We do not feel ashamed of our country using our military to attain obvious humanitarian ends, we feel ashamed of using our military to obtain political ends with no regard for humanity. We don't like the US statement to the Albanians: we'll bomb and you fend for yourselves. This is culturally counter to a large segment of US society which requires vital (economic) US interest for our military to risk loss of troops.

But on to a hot button in America's culture war: the topic of abortion. Thus far in our history this issue has proven intractable. It is extremely difficult to solve the issue with any type of compromise, and now it looks like it may prove decisive in the presidential elections.

For my part, I agree with those who believe such personal decisions ought to be left to the involved parties. It will be immediately countered that I am for the right to commit murder. I would be concerned about such a charge if I believed it was genuine.

But it is not. I was taught to believe (by the American culture in which I was raised) that 'free' abortions led to promiscuity, and in the early days it was still whispered that the issue was an attempt to wrest control over such a decision from the male. As I grew and the battlefield changed, the gender issue was dropped, and I was taught by example to remain silent about the moral question of promiscuity, and use 'murder' and 'sanctity of life' for public debate.

The problem was that the 'right to life' argument didn't jibe with the belief system of those who used it, and it became clear that the argument was simply being used to justify actions which satisfy deeper prejudices. The religious culture said that this life is a test, that the important life is the afterlife, even that babies who have no chance to become believers automatically go to heaven. Life is not sacred for the religious in this country, unless they are also humanitarians.

But the shift of the religious right from 'promiscuity' to 'sanctity of life' was a masterful move on their part. It took the argument from something which could be decided (i.e., our moral position regarding promiscuity) to something which could never be decided (i.e., the metaphysical question of 'when life begins'). Their appeal to science to solve this distinctly philosophical question further insulates the argument from attack, and we are stuck with debates which claim scientific evidence to prove metaphysical positions.

So let me call you on it - I'll post responses right here if you think you can defend yourself: tell me how I am wrong, how the question of the origin of life is scientific and not metaphysical, how the early questions of promiscuity play no role in the culture which seeks to stop abortions. There are many folks who believe as I do, and we would need some direct and compelling answers to these questions in order to ever join your side.

Or would you rather continue to hide behind your argument?

March 31, 1999