Clearing up misconceptions on life
Brodie Butland
freshman
I realize that I am not the first to say this, but the issue of abortion is a very complicated one with no clear-cut answers. Perhaps that is why I feel it necessary to respond to two different views on abortion as recently expressed in The Observer.
I agree with Paul Allegra, in his letter in Thursday's edition of The Observer entitled "Learn about and respect life," that considering a non-rational, non-emotional human being as not a person can imply some absolutely horrid results, such as that my mentally challenged aunt should be set aside if convenient to society. Although Paul's example of the Nazis obfuscates the real question and shows him an ever-typical doomsayer, I will grant that Shane's viewpoint seems to paint eugenics in a positive light.
On the other hand, I am also awed at Paul's lacking response with regard to the ensoulment of human babies. Shane Hudnall, in a letter Jan. 22, entitled, "Clearing up cloning misconceptions," expressed the viewpoint that fetuses are not instilled with a soul for some time after conception, an assertion to which Paul replies, "How Shane can claim when and whether an unborn child has a soul, I have no idea, since he did not support that assertion.
However, the idea of `ensoulment' or `quickening' as expressed by Shane is not a new idea; it was expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in volume two of the Summa Theologica. The angelic doctor further stated that although abortion is in all cases a sin, it is not the sin of murder if committed prior to ensoulment, roughly one to one-and-a-half months after conception."
The point that I'm trying to make is that debates between hard-line abortionists and hard-line lifers are fruitless and ultimately pollute the editorial pages with invalid, rhetorical arguments. In reality, it becomes a question of when life begins. If life truly begins at conception, then abortionists do not have a leg to stand on; whereas if we are to consider only babies capable of surviving unaided by machinery as life, then pro-lifers are in a similar bind.
Personally, I hold that both positions are equally wrong, and I prefer take a more conciliatory position involving the idea of quickening. I have my reasons, but I feel it would be inappropriate to state them here. If I am to express my own viewpoint, I would rather devote pages to adequately validating it than watering down my arguments to a weak paragraph involving blind emotion, casual assertion, or perhaps both.
Brodie Butland
freshman
St. Edwards Hall
Jan. 28, 2002
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, January 29, 2002
