pc (02/11/83)
With all of the debate about the right to abort a pregnancy,
it seems clear that the issue is one of personal conviction and
religious beliefs. People on both sides make strong arguments for
their positions, BASED ON THEIR A PRIORI BELIEF STRUCTURES. I find it
difficult to accept that any individual has a hold on a Single Ultimate
Truth, although many religious convictions are held with a kind of
resoluteness which suggests the believer is convinced that his/her
belief is Truth.
Beliefs, however deeply felt, are not the same as "facts." And
"Truth" remains the proper study of philosophers. The debate about abortion
always seems to boil down to a difference in beliefs. An individual's
beliefs represent his/her FAITH that some statement "has the ring of truth"
for him/her. There is no "scientific proof" of factuality. THIS DOES NOT
LESSEN THE RESPECT DUE TO BELIEFS (vs. facts). It merely puts beliefs in
a different category.
In the debate about abortion, there is clearly a wide diversity
of fundamental beliefs at work. Fortunately, we are free to pursue our
own religious (spiritual) and moral convictions. It would be
apalling to force a woman to abort a pregnancy if it were against her
beliefs. And, I would argue, it is equally appalling to force a woman
to carry a pregnancy to term if her beliefs tell her it is "right" to
terminate the pregnancy. (There is no "proof" that embryos are "Living
Persons" while it is clear that human entities which "live" outside of
the womb are People (for whom we guarantee a right to life). When "life"
begins remains a matter of personal belief [and possibly science's ability
to sustain life outside of the womb]. Many of these beliefs have been expressed
in articles posted to this network group.)
The issue of abortion is the issue of a person's right to choose.
It is not an issue of facts and truths but an issue of personal convictions
and beliefs. In any area where there are no "proofs" of the truth of
one hypothesis (belief), we should respect the right of individuals to
pursue their own beliefs. Anti-abortionists must be free to have as
many children as they wish (regardless of the "moral" implications of their
actions [risk to a mother's life, world overpopulation, etc] )
and pro-choice believers must be allowed to terminate their pregnancies if
they consider the pregnancy to be "wrong" (despite the religious/moral/spritual
repugnance to others).
There are compelling moral arguments for and against abortion.
At this juncture, there seems no reasonable alternative to allowing individuals
the freedom of their beliefs.