www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

Embarrassing economists -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

Sherow for House -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

It can't get crazier (wanna bet?) -10/24/2014, 9:04 AM

Digital distractions -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Orman for Senate -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal persecutors -10/23/2014, 10:00 AM

Kids do count -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

Needing the past in the future? -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

In praise of hunting -10/22/2014, 10:30 AM

What is a CID? Will it work for mall? -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Judging importance on the ballot -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Kansas Speaks -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Paying for schools -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Joining forces for Orman -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Research before voting -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Davis is moderate? -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The most important election in your lifetime -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Huelskamp stands out -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Kansas farm interests -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Keeping unfounded reports from 'going viral' -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The age of cynicism -10/18/2014, 9:02 AM

Preventable diseases -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Second term needed -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Kansans deserve better -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Officially killing Americans -10/17/2014, 10:27 AM

New era at FHSU -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Roberts is right choice -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Crumbling Constitution -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Redbelly's future -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas deserves better -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Remember to vote on Nov. 4 -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

You almost feel sorry for Sean Groubert -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Register to vote -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Living on that 70 percent -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

New bullying problem for schools: parents -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Cheerios, marriage equality, the Supreme Court -10/13/2014, 9:49 AM

Wedded bliss -10/12/2014, 5:54 PM

Who is the real fraud? -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Teenagers 'make some noise' -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Not so private property -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal funding -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Teacher indoctrination -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Vote Republican -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Non-partisan politics -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Teen driver safety week Oct. 19 to 25 -10/9/2014, 9:04 AM

FHSU party -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Poverty in America -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Let the women serve -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Time for new direction -10/8/2014, 9:49 AM

Improving Kansas economically -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Water abusers -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Play safe on the farm -10/8/2014, 9:34 AM

Where the money comes from -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The president's security -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

Marriage equality -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The sins of the father are visited -10/6/2014, 9:02 AM

Cannabis in America: The bottom line -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

A reason to celebrate -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

Gov. shields wealthy from paying for schools -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

Passionate protest in defense of civil disorder -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

October is time for baseball and, of course, film premieres -10/4/2014, 2:16 PM

Alley cleanup -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Will the West defend itself? -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Find another school -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

It's better now -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

The answer is to bomb Mexico? -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

Falling revenue -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

School facilities -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Look ahead, not back -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Secret Service needs to step up its game -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Roosevelts were true leaders -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Moral bankruptcy -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Expect some sort of change in Topeka -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

'A tale of two countries' -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

The last of the Willie Horton ads? -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

Finding answers to the future of Kansas -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

College: Where religious freedom goes to die -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Honoring Hammond -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Do statistical disparities mean injustice? -9/26/2014, 9:53 AM

World university rankings -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas experiment -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Two anti-choice parties -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Not in the same old Kansas anymore -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Domestic violence -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Back to war we go -9/24/2014, 9:55 AM

Piling on the NFL -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Emma Watson looking for a few good men -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Renter runaround -9/23/2014, 7:32 PM

Enough is enough -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

Life of politics in the state -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

What is and is not child abuse -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Cannabis politics and research -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Future of The Mall -9/21/2014, 6:14 PM

Multiculturalism is a failure -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

State education rankings -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Kobach gone wild -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Bias prevents civil discussion of education issues -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Immigration is American -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Costs to states not expanding Medicaid -9/17/2014, 10:14 AM

Medicare threats -9/17/2014, 10:12 AM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Parsing abortion debate terms, Part 1

Published on -12/6/2013, 9:52 AM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

Like many others, I attended the recent Rick Santorum and Howard Dean debate at Fort Hays State University. It was generally civil. The closest thing to a spitting contest had to do (surprise, surprise) with abortion. Factions in the audience applauded to support one side or the other.

Me, I got to thinking how inadequate the exchange was. Like too many current debates, it was far too short. But in today's information-by-sound-bite world, it was all too common. That fussy old Athenian Socrates would demand clearer definitions.

I'm no Socrates, but one question he'd ask is, "What do you mean by pro-life? That term is broad-brushy. Explain."

In India today, Jainism, an historic religious sect with about 4 million adherents, might be closer to honoring all life. Faithful Jainists walk barefoot to avoid stepping on anything living, and even sweep the path clean before them to save tiny insects. I'm not sure how they feel about microbes or fungi, or secular humanists.

Most humans I've known have a less absolutist view. Most will swat a fly. Most will run over a already ran-over carcass on the highway rather than swerve respectfully. Few will stop, go back, and scoot the body to the shoulder. A fly comes down into my office, buzzes around my nose, I'm looking for something to fold up and whop him, her, it. (I don't bother to sex them out.) No dignified burial will follow.

The point is that as a species we're much pro'er some forms of life than others. It depends on a number of things.

And, I've yet to meet anyone resolutely pro-death, pro-life's polar opposite. In a theoretically sane population, attitudes differ about the morality of capital punishment. More commonly than many of us should, we accept war -- when killing fellow human beings is commonplace -- as a necessary, even a patriotic, quasi-religious obligation. The point is that all-inclusive labels are convenient, but also arbitrary. They benefit from thoughtful reconsideration.

So, in debating abortion, for starters we need more accurate terms than the all-inclusive and polarizing "pro-life" or its deliberately polarized opposite, "pro-death."

The term "pro-abortion" is also broad-brush.

Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who's for indiscriminately aborting all human fertilized ova at any and all stages. However, the opposite term "anti-abortion" may in fact usefully describe someone opposed to all abortions at any stage of development or condition of the human zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus. (You can find those terms defined at umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/fetal-development.)

Even then, also in fact, most (but not all) of those labeled anti-abortion would make exceptions in the case where the mother's physical life is at risk. Several polls over the last 10 years indicate no more than 25 percent of Americans would make all abortions, without exception, illegal. One poll found only 12 percent would disallow all abortions. (www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm)

More accurate terms for those passionate about the subject would seem to be "pro-choice" versus "anti-choice." However, even those terms are inadequate, as I think Socrates would point out. The choice here involves not only a decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term, or to end it prematurely ... or to choose to disallow a choice. It also involves a choice as to whose choice that should be.

Sound confusing? Not really.

Choice A is that of the pregnant female, perhaps involving anyone whom she voluntarily chose as advisors. Choice B is the choice by someone(s) else whether the female (barring unintended miscarriage) must carry whatever is in her womb or fallopian tube to delivery, irrespective of stage or condition. Choice B might be that of a division of government, a religious organization granted or assuming authority, or even an ad hoc self-justifying decider.

For the purpose of argument, a third choice might allow what's in the womb or the fallopian tube (an ectopic pregnancy) to decide, but as it stands that opinion is routinely relegated to someone outside the womb -- which returns the choice to A or B.

"What's in the womb" is important to define, of course. In the next column, we'll consider intertwined phases and terms that figure into the debate. For example, we'll consider the phrase "Life begins at conception" and words like "personhood."

Then we'll weigh the logical implications of repealing Roe v. Wade.

Bob Hooper is a fourth-generation western Kansan who writes from his home in Bogue.

celtic@ruraltel.net

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos

AP Breaking News