The law of non-contradiction, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, while relatively uncontroversial gives rise to another that is, the law of the excluded middle, where something is either true or false.
Bertrand Russell, presented the most famous example, The King of France is bald, this must be either true or false, but is it?
Being there presently is no King of France, it must be false. However if one concludes the statement is false, it would imply that the present King of France is not bald, however this is not correct either, as there is no King of France.
Russells solution was presented in his paper, On Denoting, which dealt with definite descriptions, under this theory there is a hidden conjunctive in the sentence, thus the original statement The King of France is bald, is really saying, the PRESENT King of France is bald. Thus, being there is no King of France, we can conclude the statement false without the implication of the original statement.
This seems more apropos to the views of those at the extremes of the political spectrum.
In the controversy surrounding abortion, I can accept that life begins at conception, as it is logical, something is living or it is not, the law of non-contradiction.
However the equating of abortion to murder by some requires that the living and dividing cells that result from conception, have the status of personage. This gives rise to the excluded middle controversy. If one accepts the statement abortion is murder, as true, this implies that the result of any conception is a person. If one holds this view than there arises multiple controversies as to what constitutes abortion, or murder.
Murder is not only a crime against another, but in most cultures it is a crime against the society. In western society we have not only scriptural prohibitions against murder, and proscribed punishments, for those guilty of its commission, but also secular ones as well.
The pill works by regulating the menstrual cycle, conception takes place, the cells implant themselves on the uterine wall and development proceeds normally, than shortly after the 28th pill is taken the uterine walls begin sloughing off and the womans period begins and the developing fetus is expelled and dies. This occurred because of a deliberate, and premeditated act, and resulted in the death of a living product of conception, was it murder?
A pregnant woman intentionally does not seek prenatal care, and the fetus is still born, is she a murderer to some degree?
A woman is unable to obtain proper health care or diet, or living conditions because of her inability to pay, and the fetus dies, is she a murder, is the society a murderer because it chose not provide health care, or food, or proper housing?
If one holds that the termination of a product of conception, a fetus, is the death of a person, than not only must they be willing to accept the responsibility its well-being, but they also must be willing to accept societies intrusion into their lives concerning products of conception in which they are intimately and genetically involved in, so as to protect this unborn person.
That is why I find either extreme in the abortion debate to be distasteful. Those equating abortion with murder often are the same ones opposed to, conceptive education, providing prenatal care to the indigent, and government intrusion. It seems more a matter of right to birth, not a right to life. Those in support abortion at any stage of pregnancy seem to have abdicated any responsibility and the role of cultural mores.
A more useful framing of the debate would be, what constitutes personage, and not, an absolute of life or death, as neither extreme of the pro or con side, seems willing to be bound by the consequences of their positions.
Life is no joke but funny things happen
jon
