"Common Ground" Post Follow-Up

I would like thank Walth for his comment on the last post. I wrote that post with the full intention of writing a follow-up explaining why I believe that life begins at conception. That premise is the linchpin for the entire pro-life argument, after all. That post is in the works. In the meantime, Walth brought up some other aspects of the abortion debate that I think are important to consider as well.

Point 1:

Walth's first objection is that labeling abortion as murder is simply a tactic used unfairly to "demonize one set of beliefs." This threatens to undermine the integrity of the pro-life stance because it suggests that pro-lifers use dishonest tactics and faulty facts in order to create an emotional, subjective response favorable to their position. The objection, however, does not work because a) it criticizes facts as if they were tactics and b) it fails to correctly designate each (facts and tactics) to its appropriate place within the debate. Though some may perceive it as a tactic, stating that "abortion constitutes murder" is a fact claim. Therefore, any criticism of it must first be concerned with the validity of the fact. Unless that can be discredited, the claim has a legitimate place within a debate. How the facts are used is a different question, and one I think more at the heart of Walth's objection.

It is certainly possible to misuse established facts in a debate (we don't have to look any further than modern political campaigns to see that). Statements can be true in a technical sense yet still be used to create highly distorted pictures of reality. People can create any implication they want by refusing to contextualize the facts they use within the bigger picture or even with other facts pertinent to the discussion. This can undermine a debate just as much as can using faulty facts. To present an intellectually honest and legitimate argument, tactics must both contextualize facts and given genuine consideration to opposing view points. By approaching a debate in this manner, the debate is fair and those observing the discussion can trust that their reactions and opinions in reference to the issue at hand are based on an accurate, balanced, and objective argumentation.

This is the approach that I take toward abortion and that I took in my last post. I look at the facts, develop my opinions in response to those facts, and then develop the methods by which I express those opinions. I don't purposefully try to "demonize" the other side, I simply lay out the facts and openly explain how I developed my opinions of those facts to those that are interested. Any demonization that occurs is not something I inject into the debate, but rather a reaction of the observer. When demonization occurs like this, it is due to the nature of what is being described, not the manner in which the facts were presented.

It can see how someone would object to facts that are counterproductive to his position in a debate. However, when the facts are credible and responsibly presented, the reactions to those facts are not a credible grounds for criticism or omission.

Point 2:

Walth also claims that my "exaggerated metaphor" regarding the 40 year old man is problematic. I should have been more clear in this analogy because by one reading, he is correct. In one sense, the metaphor could suggest that the action of abortion is comparable to the action of killing a 40 year old man on the street. This analogy fails because each action cannot be separated from its respective circumstances. The analogy that I intended to create was one that compares the morality of each action. Since the two actions are highly comparable in both moral clarity and moral reprehensibility, I maintain that the analogy works well.

Though I think Walth's suggested metaphor was simply intended to demonstrate the art of exaggeration, it accurately reflects the underlying philosophy of the pro-choice argument and I wanted to be sure to recognize it as such. The analogy Walth describes suggests comparing having an abortion with swatting a fly. The analogy in my post compares killing a 40 year old human to killing an unborn human. While people who object to killing a fly certainly exist, I think most people would agree that the moral concern over killing a human is significantly different than killing a fly. However, if an unborn baby is not a human, does abortion carry any more moral weight than fly swatting?

Point 3

Walth's third stated objection pertains to the use of faith-based beliefs in the abortion debate. Though my post made no mention of religion or faith, the video at the end of the post certainly tinged the post with religious sentiment. The video was included as a means of emphasizing the contradiction between claiming to protect women when you are in fact endorsing the destruction of so many. Take out the video and there are no religious elements to be found. I will take the same approach in my next post on why abortion constitutes murder.

Even though I choose not to include religion in this discussion, I disagree with the notion that religious ideas do not have a place in debating public square issues. Science can only tell us so much before our opinions, beliefs and life experiences must come in and tell us how to interpret and apply what we perceive. Everyone has faith in something and that faith most certainly informs the stances that people take when debating issues of all sorts. I realize that statement opens up a whole new can of worms, but that discussion will take place in a future post about the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

While some may see the prolife stance on the beginning of life as a means to and end, this prolifer doesn't. From my perspective, my belief that abortion constitutes murder comes as a result of the fact that life begins at conception - not the other way around. This may sound like nuance, but as Walth's comment as demonstrated it is very important indeed.