Abortion lecture urges students to think logically

Most arguments for or against abortion are vague and illogical, according to Nathan Nobis, a candidate for an open position in the philosophy and religion department at UTC. To debate abortion, all sides on the issue must be as clear and well thought out as possible, he said.

Nobis visited UTC from the University of Rochester to lecture on Tuesday to present a speech entitled 'Not Pro-Life' and 'Not Pro-Abortion'

The first point Nobis made was that arguments on abortion are too often based on an individual's emotions. When people base their decisions on emotions, he said, it "results in the quality of thought going down."

Nobis indicated that when forming arguments about the morality of abortion, individuals should be precise and avoid ambiguity. He said the pro-life argument often comes down to "Fetuses are human, so abortion is wrong," but that argument is not logical or well thought out.

He said that if the statement is broken down, the fallacy of the argument can be seen. He said that if fetuses are human because they are biologically human, this is a problem. If it's wrong to kill anything that is biologically human, he said, then other things that are not fetuses should not be killed either. He gave an example.

"Philosophers like to use silly examples," he said. So, he asked the audience to determine if a human toe, kept alive for a long time, was to be considered a human. If so, is it morally wrong to kill the toe?

No, he said.

Dr. Donald Klinefelter, a current professor in the department of philosophy and religion, pointed out that it isn't always considered morally wrong to kill someone who is terminally ill.

Nobis continued to explain why the most popular arguments against the topic of abortion don't work. He said that the moral assumptions and implications of being for or against some abortions are not wrong. He indicated that since arguments for or against abortion tend to be very emotional, people don't create good stances.

He pitched a moderate approach to abortion, saying, "A pro-choice position could be that 'some abortions are morally okay, but a few might not be.'"

He advocated for a position in the middle. He said that pro-life and pro-choice people -should come to an agreement and both sides should give in a little. Pro-lifers should not say that abortion is always wrong, and a pro-choicer shouldn't say it's always right.

"Some abortions have moral problems, especially later abortions, because they can cause the fetus to experience pain and suffering," he said. "Fetuses can feel pain at about 28-30 weeks. The pro-choice [side] wants to disguise the fact that fetuses can feel pain."

Talia Welch, another philosophy and religion professor, thought most of the arguments came to lawmakers.

"Generally, a lot of this pro-choice, pro-life debate surrounds legislation. [The] pro-choice [side] is more concerned with the law rather than if certain abortions are morally permissible," she said.

Nobis agreed and said that a resolution to the debate could be found if both sides would lessen their arguments.

"Each side might think, 'if we lose an inch, we'll lose everything,'" he said. "But if both sides agreed that not all abortions are okay, or on the other side - that not all abortions are murder, it would probably help end the public debate."