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.
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