Debate

We live in an interesting time culturally. Some of the biggest issues that we discuss involve situations that the majority of people will probably never be in. Most Americans won’t fight in wars, sit in prisons, face the kind of racism that existed in our country fifty years ago, or have an abortion. Yet we feel that we have the right to make decisions for the people that will be in those shoes and thanks to our representative democracy, to an extent we do. Being in the majority is a very powerful position. The hope is that the people in that position will use it to help those that aren’t as fortunate and not to feather their own nest. To that end, we need to have open, frank communication across the board with those that we disagree with. It should be filled with respect and an honest attempt to understand the other person’s point of view. That is what we will try to do here.

The morality of abortion is an incredibly tough nut for me to crack. Much of the discussion typically involves things like the nature of life, what it means to be a human being and when it should be permissible to take a human life. Those are all complicated things to be sure and I shall try and illuminate each point to lay out why I believe abortion to be by and large an immoral choice.

Scott and I have decided to enter into a civil debate over the abortion issue. I don’t often willingly debate this issue because I recognize the strong emotions held by both sides and I strongly dislike emotional arguments. I have agreed to debate this issue with Scott because I respect his rational approach to Christianity and believe that both He and I will be able to (mostly) keep our emotions at bay. Also, since I do not hold any of my beliefs dogmatically, I find it quite likely that I will learn something about the issue from Scott and hope that he may learn something from me. I’d also like to thank Scott for the invitation to debate and for setting up the forum on which the debate will appear.

Sid, you defined personhood as “the extent to which a being is able to sense the world, react to it, think, and reflect on their actions” and say that as a result we can wind up with different degrees of personhood. That’s internally consistent and I see how you arrive at that. Culturally though it would seem that this definition doesn’t hold up. In our culture and indeed in most cultures that I’m aware of, children are considered precious. When you rescue them you are deemed heroic, more so than if you helped say an able bodied adult. The same can be said of the elderly, even those that can no longer care for themselves. I am encouraged to think of those beings as something to be protected. Similarly, harming animals and insects, depending on the motivation, can be considered an immoral act so I would think that the mother’s motivation for the abortion must be called into play. The amount of “personhood” something has should not be the sole measuring stick for considering the morality of the act against them.

Hello Scott,

For simplicity’s sake, may I refer to your position as the Sanctity of Life Ethic (SLE for short)? I’ll use that title in this counter-rebuttal and replace it with a title that you prefer if necessary. You may refer to my position as the Quality of Life Ethic (QLE), if you’d like. I will first critique your opening position and then move on to your first rebuttal.