Abortion Legislation, Secular & Religious arguments and Public Policy - Part 2

Establishing the Correct Policy

Determining what the nation should believe about abortion by letting the U.S. Supreme Court decide was a huge mistake in my view. One of the reasons is that it seems to undermine the very nature of democratic procedure. Shouldn’t the voice of the people be heard and weighed in when considering a decision on an issue of life and death?

I contend that each state by way of majority vote should decide within its own sovereignty as to whether abortion – in all nine months of pregnancy or in some – should remain legal or illegal. Second, when considering a particular policy, let the most sophisticated advocates on both sides present their arguments in detail and select certain legislators – that are competent in logic and weighing arguments – to decide which arguments are the best and decide which policy to enact. For any particular policy or law to be just, citizens’ constitutional rights must be taken into account and proper judicial review ought to be enacted to ensure that the process was completely thorough. The Supreme Court should have the authority “to strike down any law passed by Congress when the Court believes the law violates the Constitution” (Gateways to Democracy, P. 45).

I will briefly interview with philosopher Patrick Lee who is professor at Franciscan University by asking him two question: (1) Why do secularists deny the pro-life position through argumentation and (2) how can pro-lifers influence public policy to legislate laws that reflect their viewpoints about the unborn and the nature of abortion?

Interview

1. I think one reason why is that some secularists are extremely arrogant and assume that “right-wingers” –as they would call them—have no arguments but are just appealing to Scripture or teachings of the Church.  Many of them have a preconceived “script” about how disagreements with “right-wingers” should go.  In my experience when they find out, in a debate for example, that there are solid reasons for the pro-life position then they are surprised and flummoxed.  According to their pre-conceived script “right-wingers” are opposed to science and want to impose “backward” biblical views on the reasonable, intelligent people. This is ridiculous because science is crystal clear that what is growing inside the womb is a distinct human organism, actively developing itself (himself or herself—sex is determined from the beginning) to the mature stage of a human organism, needing only a suitable environment and nutrition. As human organisms, you and I once were adolescents, toddlers, and infants. And since a human organism is what we are, not an incidental attribute, you and I once were human fetuses and once were human embryos. So, human embryos and fetuses are human organisms, and we are human organisms—so, if “pro-choicers” insist that it is okay to kill those human organisms when they are in their mothers’ wombs, they must point out the difference that justifies killing them.

2. I think pro-life advocates certainly can influence the law and public policies so as to provide greater protection for unborn human beings.  We can never “write people off” – everyone has a conscience and our calling is to appeal to that.  The pro-life argument is the reasonable one and reasonableness sometimes does—not always of course—make a difference practically.  All we can do is present the case and hope people will consider the reasons and issues.

Conclusion

I argued in this paper that the abortion debate has deep importance and impact for everyone, including those who aren’t directly involved in the debate. I attempted to frame the core disagreement, discussed the distinction between secular and religious arguments, establishing the correct policy, legislating the right policy, and conducted a brief interview with philosopher Patrick Lee.

Source

·               Gateways to Democracy, 2^nd Edition, edited by John Geer, Wendy Schiller and Jeffrey Segal.