I touched on this subject a couple posts down but in light of President Obama's decision today to rescind the ban that had restricted federal funding for abortions performed abroad, I thought it would be appropriate to raise it once more. Why are so many people indifferent to the heinous deed of procured abortion? Of course, pro-lifers have asked themselves this question over and over again since Roe vs. Wade. Science, with all its tools for pre-natal observation like the 4D ultrasound, has made the viability of the unborn child rather obvious.
What if a candidate were to advocate abortions only for black women and ban it for all other women? In other words, only black babies should be aborted. Does not this selective application smack of genocide? But if abortion is applied in an egalitarian sense, then we are to celebrate it as a marvelous expression of the freedom to choose and responsibly "plan" a family. Does this make any sense?
We care about health care, about war and peace, about the economy, about the environment and the eggs of endangered eagles. But so many apparently don't give a wit about abortion. Why? Discussions with various friends have highlighted a congeries of possible reasons for the wide-spread disregard for the moral implications of abortion. None have provided a perfect, clear-cut answer but I think they are a good place to start.
- An emphasis on empiricism and utilitarianism in the modern age: If the subject in question cannot be seen directly, then the certainty of its existence is clouded or even placed in doubt. Obviously, the unborn child is cloaked within the womb of the mother from the naked eye. Convincing people accustomed to "seeing and then believing" that a person does in fact occupy the womb is, unfortunately, a tall order to fill. But this explanation doesn't really pass muster for me. As I stated earlier, the scientific method, so-long considered the enemy of religious shamanism, is in fact helping pro-lifers prove their original argument. The pro-life thesis is not about religion per se; it's about biological facts and ethics. In other words, proving the viability of the unborn child does not require religious validation. Thanks to remarkable strides in ultrasound technology, the details of the developing life in the womb are more visible and apparent than ever before. So shouldn't empiricism back us up in this instance?
- Many people have either had abortions or have helped others to obtain one: Such people are going to be very reluctant to indict themselves in any wrongdoing. Admitting that the unborn child is a person would lead them to the logical conclusion that they have committed a reprehensible act. So they will perform the requisite rationalization in order to avoid arriving at the fateful conclusion, i.e., "Abortion is legal, therefore it must be ok." And so on. The feeling of guilt would be overwhelming, so it is easier to live in denial than face reality. Once the process of rationalization is complete and the denial of the personhood of the unborn child crystalizes, John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism blends nicely with the thoroughly modern notion of rights as simply the freedom to do anything one wishes in so far as no one else is harmed in the process. Hence abortion is perceived as merely a medical procedure that should remain "safe, legal and rare."
- Reason and critical thinking have been totally trumped by the era of emotion and good intentions: No matter how rationally we make our case regarding the personhood of the innocent child, people are willing to make exceptions in the face of the often deeply tragic circumstances that surround an unplanned pregnancy. So we'll hear a lot of talk about the plight and fear of the teenage girl who was raped, etc., thus making a rational approach to the debate seem cold and devoid of compassion. Again, back to the popularity of empiricism: It's rather easy to read the fear on the face of a scared teenage girl and want to do whatever one can to "help" her. It's a little more difficult to cultivate a sense of empathy for a hidden, voiceless and faceless unborn child.
As I said, these reasons are perhaps a start but the vexing questions remain?
Why are so many people perfectly content to shelve their critical thinking when it comes to abortion?
How can pro-lifers adjust their tactics to help more people see the truth regarding the unparalleled moral evil of abortion?
No comments:
Post a Comment