by Harry Cassio

Created on: December 08, 2008   Last Updated: June 29, 2009

THE ABORTION NON DEBATE

I never cease to be amazed by the preparedness of people to debate issues that have no hope of resolution because of a lack of common ground. I chuckle at atheists discussing religion with Christians secure in the knowledge that any debate is futile, and that what both sides are actually attempting is a conversion of their adversary. Before any debate can successfully take place a common ground must be established, both sides need to agree on a basis for their differing views, a mutual acceptance of facts relating to the discussion and a set of rules governing the limits of the subject matter approved by both sides. Without these basic guidelines no discussion can proceed, any resolution will become a vague notion and at best, the debate will deteriorate into the kind of shouting match that only the media thrives on. For this reason, when a system of beliefs is introduced into a discussion, both sides must accept the same tenets, any variation in these ideals will draw the debate to a haltpretty basic you would think.

In spite of this, the biggest single offender to the worlds debating topics is religion. It is impossible to debate the existence or non existence of God. And yet it has continued for millennia and will continue well into the future. The clergy have become evermore scientific in their explanations of why things are the way they are and their logic has become evermore gymnastic in its convolution. Ultimately we are all going to believe in what seems right to us and if we have a god in our lives he is going to speak to us from within. Man, in his quest for uniformity in these matters, strives to formalize a creed for all, complete with a code of behavior designed for all.

There are other examples of debates based on differing beliefs. Abortion rears its ugly head and becomes a topic for public debate on average of every five years or so. If we have to have a war every twenty years based on generational cycles, abortion, for some inexplicable reason has to be debated on a government level at least every five. The pitfalls are the same as with religion, no common ground. You cannot argue a reason for condemning the termination of life based on your perception of when life takes place. On the one hand the anti abortionist will argue that a life begins at a certain point after conception and will cite ultrasound scans that show the development of fingers and toes in a two week old foetus as if these physical attributes constitute the substance of life. On the other hand the pro abortionist will go to great lengths to point out examples and circumstances where the termination of life is the only humane solution to an unwanted pregnancy. The argument remains the same as long as we have differing views on when life begins. Both sides form valid arguments for what is ultimately a basis for what they each believe.and nothing more.
Does this mean that the decision should be left to the individual? That's the real debate.

Learn more about this author, Harry Cassio.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.