<p>I was really impressed with the article in today's Daily Gazette.</p>
<p>A bioethicist spoke at Swarthmore about a book he has written making an ethical case against abortion:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bioethicist Christopher Tollefsen, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, spoke last night on The Philosophical Case Against Abortion, hosted by Swarthmore Students Supporting Life. Tollefsen is co-author of Embryo: A Secular Defense of Human Life, which he wrote with Swarthmore alumnus Robert P. George.</p>
<p>Why a philosophical case rather than, say, a religious case? Tollefsen indicated that his aim in approaching the problem of abortion from a philosophical standpoint was to try to craft an argument that transcended religious lines in outlining a coherent, valid moral norm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's all well and good. I'm glad to see that Swarthmore students are bringing in speakers from all points of view. However, what really impressed me was the sophistication of the questions from the Daily Gazette and Phoenix reporters who interviewed Tollefsen. Compared to the usual polemics surrounding this issue, I thought the questions went right to the core ethical issues. </p>
<p>Tollefsen</a> Argues "A Philosophical Case Against Abortion" :: The Daily Gazette</p>
<p>To me, this article is the best of Swarthmore.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>The guy's argument is still dependent on the old "life begins at conception" canard used by the old Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and today's Focus on the Family. Cults led by demagogues who are no more ethical (or sane) than David Koresh or Jim Jones or Ted Haggard. Ethics isn't part of the equation without agreement on the central question. </p>
<p>To me, "life" means a human being. A fertilized egg may meet the definition of life, but it is not, IMHO, a human being. Not yet. It doesn't look like a human being; it doesn't act like a human being. So much for Tollefsen.</p>
<p>I hate abortion. I hate the very idea of abortion. But there is no way on God's green earth I'd force a woman to carry a rapist's fetus to birth. Think of that poor young woman in Austria who was imprisoned in a basement for 24 years by her father, who raped her daily, forcing her to bear seven of his kids. Seven monstrosities. </p>
<p>I'm sorry, but incest and rape are real good reasons for abortion, especially early term. I would have no qualms about it at all. What ****es me off are women who repeatedly use abortion as a form of birth control. Now that's wrong! I don't need Tollefsen or the other right wing nut jobs to tell me that.</p>
<p>That said, I agree that it's a good thing for a college/university to permit diverse points of view. So, would you apply this same standard to the current brouhaha at Notre Dame? Apparently, there is vicious objection is some Catholic quarters over the ND president's invitation to President Barack Obama to give the commencement address in May and receive an honorary degree. Why? Because he's pro-choice. He's not going to talk about abortion. He's going to speak about success in careers and life. And he's the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for crying out loud! Or how about Pepperdine or Wheaton College or Bob Jones University or Liberty University inviting Jane Fonda to speak? </p>
<p>Inviting diverse viewpoints to campus should work both ways.</p>
<p>I wasn't commenting on the rights and wrongs of the arguments, only that I found the questions asked by the two student reporters to be far above the usual polemics.</p>
<p>That's what also happened when my daughter took a religion course that discussed current theological thinking about issues like capital punishment and abortion. I think that reading the theological and/or ethical underpinnings of these debates is much more valuable for the students than the usual soundbytes.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more, but sometimes people want to press the flesh and get their red meat live, to put it crudely.</p>