I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.
But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?
We do not know.
On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.
To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.
On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.
The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.
Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.
Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.
Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one 'egg' cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a period of development to become one.
So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.
Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.
And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.
And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".
All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own cause. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.