Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others
I'm going to attempt to write a post involving abortion without delving into all the age-old issues of traditional abortion debates. But I make no promises. Actually, what I specifically want to talk about is the issue that Hillary Clinton brought up; that the goal should be zero abortions, that everyone who has a baby wants that baby; and that people don't get pregnant otherwise. This isn't a new position; in most abortion discussions, pro-choice people try to find common ground with pro-lifers by at least conceding this point.
But I do have an issue with it. By saying that abortions are something to be avoided, you give credence to the pro-life argument that there is something wrong about abortions. Now, there are many people who are pro-choice who actually DO believe that abortions are semi-wrong, but that it is simply worse to bring in an unwanted pregnancy. They believe that the choice itself is important because of the right, but that abortion itself isn't without moral complications.
The problem with this is that there will always be unwanted pregnancies; even with the best birth control methods there is a .4% chance of pregnancy. To say that you want these to be avoided may be admirable, but it isn't practical and therefore almost impossible. So to speak of a world of no abortions isn't saying that there won't be unwanted pregnancies, it's saying that it's a world where abortions are considered wrong and are banned.
As for moral issues, I won't concede that abortions are wrong in any way, especially not first trimester and RU-486 induced abortions. In these cases the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells, sometimes undifferentiated. I don't believe that anything magical happens at conception to make it human; in fact I don't believe anything magical ever happens to make it human except perhaps viability outside the womb (which is a tough benchmark, I admit. But I'd be willing to allow any first trimester abortions in exchange for banning second term abortions, which is pretty gray area.)
Anyway, the real moral issue here is that pro-lifers believe that they are preserving, well, life. I believe that is hypocritical to rail against abortions and unplugging feeding tubes and not rail against the death penalty and genocides around the world. In fact, I believe that it is so hypocritical that it exposes (most, not all) pro-lifers as not really trying to preserve life at all, but rather simply following popular religious opinion.
And as for the few people who are actually concerned about preserving human life in all situations; isn't it better to preserve human life that has actually lived, that is actually sentient? Aren't murder and capital punishment higher priorities in the right-to-life fight?
Of course, if you're still reading and thinking "yes, but all murder is murder; we shouldn't ignore this kind of murder just because other kinds exist", then we have no common ground. I refer you back to the fourth paragraph. And here's your miniature american flag.
But I do have an issue with it. By saying that abortions are something to be avoided, you give credence to the pro-life argument that there is something wrong about abortions. Now, there are many people who are pro-choice who actually DO believe that abortions are semi-wrong, but that it is simply worse to bring in an unwanted pregnancy. They believe that the choice itself is important because of the right, but that abortion itself isn't without moral complications.
The problem with this is that there will always be unwanted pregnancies; even with the best birth control methods there is a .4% chance of pregnancy. To say that you want these to be avoided may be admirable, but it isn't practical and therefore almost impossible. So to speak of a world of no abortions isn't saying that there won't be unwanted pregnancies, it's saying that it's a world where abortions are considered wrong and are banned.
As for moral issues, I won't concede that abortions are wrong in any way, especially not first trimester and RU-486 induced abortions. In these cases the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells, sometimes undifferentiated. I don't believe that anything magical happens at conception to make it human; in fact I don't believe anything magical ever happens to make it human except perhaps viability outside the womb (which is a tough benchmark, I admit. But I'd be willing to allow any first trimester abortions in exchange for banning second term abortions, which is pretty gray area.)
Anyway, the real moral issue here is that pro-lifers believe that they are preserving, well, life. I believe that is hypocritical to rail against abortions and unplugging feeding tubes and not rail against the death penalty and genocides around the world. In fact, I believe that it is so hypocritical that it exposes (most, not all) pro-lifers as not really trying to preserve life at all, but rather simply following popular religious opinion.
And as for the few people who are actually concerned about preserving human life in all situations; isn't it better to preserve human life that has actually lived, that is actually sentient? Aren't murder and capital punishment higher priorities in the right-to-life fight?
Of course, if you're still reading and thinking "yes, but all murder is murder; we shouldn't ignore this kind of murder just because other kinds exist", then we have no common ground. I refer you back to the fourth paragraph. And here's your miniature american flag.
# posted by Stuart @ 8:24 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
That's actually one thing you can praise the Catholic Church for...they are consistent with regards to their views on life, whether it be abortion or the death penalty. I suggest people go to comedycentral.com and watch the Daily Show headlines on the Pope's death and the Republican Party attempting to use the occassion to forward their pro-life agenda and being called out on this very issue.
I don't doubt that the religious leaders themselves are consistent (they're the few people I alluded to); it's the masses that I doubt. On a side note, doesn't that bother Catholics that Popes and Cardinals routinely talk of being shepherds of the flock? Are they mocking people as sheep?
Hello My name is Chanel Reed.. And im 15 years old and i feel really lonely and left out. I had three abortions one when i was 12 and one when i was 14 and one when i was 15. I know My body is probably all messed up because of it. I feel bad mentally and physically. I know what everyone always says that i shouldn't of been having sex that young anyway..but i did and I tell God every night how sorry i am and how sorry i am for making that mistake 3 times..I want to learn how to love my self again but my point is that if your too young and not ready for a child and don't want to give your child up for adoption then i think you should have an abortion..i don't consider it bad...because if you can't afford to take care of yourself then how can you bring a precious child in the world and have them suffer because of your mistakes....Why would you carry a baby for 9 months in your stomach them just give it away...everyone may disagree with my decisions i made and believe me i regret it and God is with me every step of the way so i can never go threw it again but i feel hurt that i did it but please make the right decision to all the women who are thinking about it..don't have the baby just because everyone may tell you that an abortion is a horrible thing have it because you want too! Thank you
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 4:24 AM
: 4:24 AM << Home
