The Abortion "Debate"

Abortion is probably the most heatedly discussed issue in American politics today. That doesn't mean it is the most important, just the most heatedly discussed.

The majority of what passes for "discussion" falters badly for a simple reason - the opposing sides are arguing different issues. Those who tend to oppose abortion (I am avoiding self-serving titles like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" like the plague here) do so from the position that whatever is in the mother's womb is a human and is therefore entitled to all of the protections, legal and moral, any other human is entitled to. Those who tend to favor abortion (at least in some circumstances) do so from the position that only the mother, from the perspective of her own conscience and values, can make such a difficult and momentous decision.

In other words, the anti-abortion camp says basically "abortion shouldn't be permitted because of this, this, and this." Their opponents say in return "but these are very difficult questions that reasonable people could disagree about. Why does YOUR view get to take precedence over MINE when my body is the one involved?" The positions can even debate each other directly because they aren't directly opposed in any true sense. It would be like one person arguing that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever, and another wanting to discuss what criteria are being used to determine the "best".

Since this is my blog, let me set forth what I think should be the paradigm for discussing this issue. Here are the key questions, in my opinion:

1. When does human life begin?
2. Once human life has begun, at what point is it entitled to certain fundamental rights?
3. Should the rights of the mother count? If they do, how do they compare to the rights of what is inside of her?

I'm not offering any answers just yet. I think the road to correct answers begins with the asking of proper questions.