Skip to main content

Some Definitions For Clarity

The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” refer, as we know, to the political issue of abortion. It has numerous moral and social implications, but we ought not forget that every political claim is a moral claim. This truth becomes obscured by the fact that some political positions or claims don’t seem like moral claims, or don’t move people as passionately as others do. When many people say, “Keep morality out of politics,” or “You can’t legislate morality,” what they really mean is, “I don’t like the particular moral claims that this person is attempting to enforce.” Just think about that for a minute.

Anyway, some definitions for the issue of abortion:

“Pro-life”—It is never morally acceptable to take the life of a baby in the womb.
“Pro-choice”—It is at least sometimes morally acceptable to take the life of a baby in the womb.

As you can see, there are a lot of surrounding discussions that are worth having, especially surrounding difficult circumstances faced by pregnant women that push people to take a “pro-choice” position. Also, many people think of the issues as involving a “spectrum” of some sort, and that whatever the issue, they are somewhere along it. I have attempted to rid us of these gradations, because they are not helpful. Some people may find themselves described as “pro-choice” when they do not self-identify as such, and I can only encourage you to be honest about what you really think, and why you think it. Others won’t like the moral starkness of this discussion, particularly with my use of the word, “baby.” I cannot imagine wording things differently, without cluttering up the issue. If you find yourself feeling guilty because of some position you take, or changing the terms, you may want to consider why. My definitions do imply a rejection of the idea that people have value because of their utility in some way, or that such value is conferred by others. Guilty.

There is also plenty of room within a “pro-choice” stance to say that abortion would be unacceptable in circumstance X, but not in circumstance Y. I didn’t want to mischaracterize a position, so I left the “pro-choice” position as broad as possible, while accurately framing the discussion. I fully intend and would expect people especially in the “pro-choice” category to argue about circumstances, because it is the circumstances that change the moral quality of an action, in some ways of thinking. The “pro-life” position I have outlined assumes that the intentions or the circumstances of the people involved do not change the character of the act.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un