“Truth” without last namesJ. Francisco Macías | February 10, 2017
Back in January 2016, Alexandra Liebl, a student contributor of the International Youth Coalition, published the article “Abortion Rights and Oxymorons”, where she described how her opposition to abortion was grounded in her love for truth.
Two months ago, (that is, almost a year after the publication of that article), a girl named Maggie published a comment to that same article, criticizing Alexandra’s opinion, and classifying it as a religious statement. She also claimed that abortion is a “health issue”. I want to express my view with regards to Maggie’s argument, as I think she is taking the wrong approach to this problem.
To start, I don’t agree with the categorization of abortion as a health issue. If I may be a little sarcastic, I honestly do not think that any serious scientific mind should ever place pregnancy in the same category as AIDS or the Asian Flu.
For everyone living in this world, it is self-evident that pregnancies can be problematic and pregnant women often have to face difficult situations. The problem, however, goes beyond public health policy. What we must understand, in my opinion, is that the struggles of pregnant women include (just to start) their economic possibilities, their family status, their employment, and even their level of education.
Every single woman should be helped and loved where she is. Every single pregnant woman needs and deserves a better solution than just a quick, cheap, and “safe” abortion.
There is a non-debatable reality that we must address: hundreds, thousands or even millions of pregnant women are suffering for several causes. To suggest that the solution is abortion, however, just does not sound right.
Having said that, I do agree with Maggie, when she speaks about religion and about how not everybody believes in the Bible. However, my second disagreement with her is that she is ignoring the profound argument presented by Alexandra; she decided for “truth over lies”. Challenging this pronouncement only by denying the universality of the Bible sounds like a second terrible mistake. Alexandra’s deep reasoning, which Maggie is not grasping, is the central concept of truth.
As an example, while we all understand that politics may be affected by specific ideologies, we also know that no government (nor its programs or policies) will ever be able to ignore the one and only truth that stands behind reality.
You may call it any way you want — “biblical truth”, “scientific truth”, or “empirical truth”—, but the fact is that behind all our thoughts, ideas, and arguments, there exists an objective truth, and a reality that we cannot deny. For instance, if we look at a newborn, we know —and it is a fact— that he/she comes from a mother’s womb. We also know —as a fact— that we all come from there. Having this in mind, if something is true —as our lives are—, I do not care (and I don’t think anyone should care) if somebody uses the Bible to prove it.
What society needs are real debates searching for the truth, not fallacious arguments disqualifying other’s opinions.