Finding common ground (cont.) - Half a loaf is better than none

Coming to complete agreement on women's full and equal rights between those in the choice camp and those in the life camp is probably impossible. I maintain that there is no fundamental disagreement between us on a woman's equality with men, her essential worth and dignity, her potential for making huge contributions to the public good, or the fact that women deserve the same opportunities as men.

Where we differ is in the impact of biology, and the moral basis upon which we assess that impact. Because those of the life persuasion feel that not only humanity but legal personhood begin at conception, then abortion can't be countenanced because it is murder.

For a long time the choice camp argued that an unborn baby is not a human being, but medical knowledge makes that position highly problematical to hold. So the usual argument now is that the fetus is not a legal person in Canada until birth, and therefore possesses no rights, whether to life, security of the person, or any other right enjoyed by legal persons.

The choice group often declare that the life position is a religious one (particularly a Roman Catholic one), and that believers are forcing their religiously-based morality on others. But this flies in the face of the existence of many pro-life groups who claim no religious basis for their belief; e.g., Atheists for Life (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/#ixzz3TvadUwBS):

Atheist and civil libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff said that “Being without theology isn’t the slightest hindrance to being pro-life.” Atheist philosophy professor Don Marquis declared abortion is “immoral” because it denies developing fetuses “a future like ours.” The host of CFI’s Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price, author of books like Jesus is Dead and The Case Against the Case for Christ, called abortion “second-degree murder” on one of his podcasts.

Well, at least we still have the “Four Horsemen” safely in our ranks, right? Not quite. Even our beloved Christopher Hitchens considered “the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society.” He also argued that “the unborn entity has a right on its side” and identified himself as involved with the pro-life movement.

On the other hand, you have a Christian denomination such as the United Church of Canada trying to respect the dignity of life, including that of the unborn, while still supporting abortion, but not abortion on demand:

As Christians we wish to affirm: The sanctity of human life, born or unborn. That life is much more than physical existence.

We also affirm that: The taking of human life is evil.

Our concern must not be limited to a concern for the unborn but it must also include a concern for the quality of life as a whole...Life in this imperfect world often places us in complex circumstances of moral dilemma and ambiguity where values ultimate in themselves seem at times to be in conflict with other values and rights...We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.

For the UCC's complete statement, see http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1980/c511.

I suggest that it is too easy, in fact philosophically lazy, to simply write off the life camp's moral position as a strictly religious one. But whatever the moral basis for the two positions (life v. choice), they cannot be completely reconciled.

But we don't have to be completely reconciled to each other to learn from each other, if only we'd start talking instead of haranguing.That's why I used the title "Half a Loaf is Better than None" for this post. Is some of what the choice camp says of significant use in coming to a sound, strategic plan of action for the life side?

Absolutely. Let's look at what the choice groups say are their objectives for women and for public policy and see where we have common ground. This post has gotten pretty long, so I'll work on the next section tomorrow. Right now I have to go and clean the car. According to the one I love, I have no choice in this matter :-).