A retired Unitarian minister takes his stab at presenting a moral argument in favor of abortion.
He acknowledges that pro life forces have convinced the majority of people that abortion is morally wrong but of course we are not a totally moral population and so we still want it to be legal, even if immoral. Interestingly, he credits the pro life Catholic Church with a brilliant essays on moral arguments."In the game-changing 1973 Roe v. Wade case, abortion was framed as an issue of women’s rights. The women’s movement was in full swing, and it was easy to see why women would believe they should have the right to abort an unwanted fetus. But the “rights” frame proved to be an easy target for those who say the termination of a developing human being must be supported by a persuasive moral argument. They have won: a majority of Americans now believe abortion is wrong, perhaps because they think that even a poor moral argument about the termination of a developing human life is better than none at all."
"In religion, this moral argument was given its most powerful and adaptable form 120 years ago, in one of the most persuasive essays in the history of Christianity. The Rerum Novarum (“Of New Things”), was issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, and updated by the Catholic Church in 1931, 1961, and 1991. Anyone interested in reading one of the most brilliant Christian moral arguments in the past 20 centuries should check it out. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm).'Well, his stab at presenting a moral argument is not brilliant. It is the same old quality of life trumps sanctity of life or as he calls it quantity of life. He compares the quantity of life argument to insects and rats who do not care about the quality of their life. And then he makes a generalizations that few kids will make it out of the ghetto since we do not live in rural communities anymore. He equates unplanned pregnancies with the assurance that the quality of life will be poor and that it is a moral thing to do to end the developing life in the womb rather than risk that the quality of life might leave something to be desired.
He ends his weak argument with an image from those trapped in the Twin Towers on 911. Many jumped instead of being burned to death. These people had an impossible situation....stay inside and be burned or jump . They were in a crisis situation....perhaps by some stroke of luck they may land someplace and still be alive. They had seconds to make that choice. It is not in the same ball park as this conversation. How many would have chosen life even if they were badly burned and disabled because of what happened that day?
" And to enact laws whose intent is to force the most desperate women to bring babies into a home and a world that can’t care for them is, if not evil, a brutality against the most vulnerable women and children in our society — and profoundly immoral."
How can you compare babies developing in the womb to being dismembered because they may have a quality of life that you consider poor. There are those who would consider your quality of life poor, may they dismember you?