Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion. These are the lyrics:
"Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
Momma stop! Turn around! Go back! Think it over! ... ."
In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes. Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far. Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political. Each of these forums (fora in Latin) is completely different.
Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with. Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion? Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not. From science we draw a blank.
From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema. The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not. White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way. A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however. Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue. There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
Q.E.D.
"Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
Momma stop! Turn around! Go back! Think it over! ... ."
In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes. Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far. Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political. Each of these forums (fora in Latin) is completely different.
Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with. Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion? Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not. From science we draw a blank.
From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema. The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not. White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way. A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however. Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue. There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
Q.E.D.
Last edited:
