OK, yea so posts/comments on Liz's Blog and then Jing's response provoked such a reaction from me that I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject and related matters.
Call me a 'dirty liberal' if you like, but I'm pro-abortion/choice/whateveryouwanttocallit.
If abortion is really so evil and immoral then a woman who has an abortion will regret it the rest of her life. However, it should be her choice to do so. If someone feels Christianity forbids abortions, then fine, Christians won't choose to abort unborn children. However, what about all us non-christians? Are we supposed to automatically default to your morals?
My premise is that the life of a person undisputably alive (the mother) is a higher priority than one whose 'life' is indistinct and up for debate (the fetus). Now, I'm figuring that if the baby was carried to term it would place at least some burden on the mother; either medical risks associated with carrying a fetus to term or inabilty to financially support a child. Or, if the mother chooses to give the child up for adoption, it's putting the child into a poor situation and also burdening the rest of society as well. Everyone pays for child services via taxes and there are too many children in the system already. And the fact of the matter is, we, as the human race, have a population problem that's only going to get worse.
I think abortions at any stage of pregnancy should be legal. Why? Otherwise, if you approve of any stage of abortions, you're arbitrarily drawing a line of where 'life' begins. Saying that only a certain number of cells or a specific bodily function constitute a human life. What if someone is one day past whatever legal deadline was established? What makes that fetus radically different than it was the day before?
Now, for those of you who only support the abortion of fetuses conceived following rape or incest, are those 'little people' less human than any other fetus that would be aborted?
I still believe that people ought to behave responsibly and therefore 99% of abortions currently performed wouldn't be, as people would use contraception/abstinance and not face the issue of abortion. However, I understand that many people don't behave responsibly and so abortions are going to remain in demand.
In the end, it's a very personal choice that each woman facing that issue should make herself, not being left with the options that society/legislature feels are 'appropriate.'
So, yea. Those're my barely organized thoughts on the subject. Comment or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Belton, my dear friend, you are the victim of a lack of research, misinformation, and...being male.
Rather than actually logically work through your arguments from beginning to end, I can't help but point to the fault in your logic near the end.
"I think abortions at any stage of pregnancy should be legal. Why? Otherwise, if you approve of any stage of abortions, you're arbitrarily drawing a line of where 'life' begins. Saying that only a certain number of cells or a specific bodily function constitute a human life. What if someone is one day past whatever legal deadline was established? What makes that fetus radically different than it was the day before?"
If that is he case, if the child is not to be considered 'alive' enough to be worth saving at any point during the pregnancy...what's to say they're alive when they're born? What's to stop the legalization of post-birth life abortions? If you're going to say that the child's 'life' is indeterminate through pregnancy...when does that indeterminacy cease?
On a second point, why chose the mother over the fetus? ("My premise is that the life of a person undisputably alive (the mother) is a higher priority than one whose 'life' is indistinct and up for debate (the fetus). ") It can be just as easily argued that the fetus' life exhibits more potential than the mother's, having yet to begin and therefore having a multitude of years and experiences ahead of it.
"Now, I'm figuring that if the baby was carried to term it would place at least some burden on the mother; either medical risks associated with carrying a fetus to term ..."
Okay, starting there...
There ARE medical risks to carrying a fetus to term, but today's medical technology, along with making the abortion of a child as easy as ordering a burger at McDonald's (maybe easier - "Yes, I'd like an abortion, ketchup only"), has also reduced the risk of death in childbirth nearly to zero. Essentially, the only time a woman has to truly fear for her life is in the case of an ectopic pregnacy (a pregnacy in which the fetus imbeds and begins to grow within the philopian tubes and never reaches the uterus) in which case both mother and child will die without an abortion.
To continue on that thread...
"...or inabilty to financially support a child."
The simple answer here is: "If you can't support the child, put it up for adoption." Which is, I see, the same conclusion you reached...and which brings me to...
"Or, if the mother chooses to give the child up for adoption, it's putting the child into a poor situation and also burdening the rest of society as well."
As much as you like to think that the system is flooded and costing us so much money, almost everyone knows a couple who can't get pregnant and adopt, or who adopt just because they want to. And if everyone knows someone, that's a lot of adopted children. Sure, there are some who have to spend a good deal of time in government custody, but the system works and it enriches the lives of those who come to those children. When I, recently, fear my own ability to produce children, adoption looked like a VERY bright light at the end of a dark tunnel.
For the sake of answering all the questions you put forth...
"Now, for those of you who only support the abortion of fetuses conceived following rape or incest, are those 'little people' less human than any other fetus that would be aborted?"
I agree with you here. I don't believe in abortion in any case (barring cases where both lives will be lost in any other case and one can be saved - and even then, it's the mother's choice to do it...believe it or not, some will chose to die). All 'little people' as you so neatly termed it deserve the life that's been given to them. I even, at times, feel qualms about my person use of contraception, but that is really another concept entirely to be argued separately if you care a whit about why a Catholic chooses to ignore dogma and how she lives with herself.
One other question, on that topic...
"However, what about all us non-christians? Are we supposed to automatically default to your morals?"
You aren't. You are supposed to default to your own morals. Here we come to the clincher. For all of my above intense convictions, which I just needed to share in the electric air of the abortion debate...I still believe in mother's choice. The government can't control everything, and sometimes, a person is legally faced with the choice to kill, and that becomes their choice to make. I know what my choice would be. I like to think that other women would agree, but I know that isn't true. Sadly, while not impossible, it is unlikely that abotion will be illegalized, so expectant mothers will continue to be faced with this horrifying choice.
Always with my best regards,
~Christine
In the end, we have the same point: It should be the mother and not the government deciding such things.
Now to address some of your points:
"when does that indeterminacy cease?"
I didn't actually say it, and looking back I should have. I honestly waver back and forth about whether there should be some point after which abortions shouldnt be allowed (except, perhaps in the, what I hadn't realized before to be the rare case, where carrying a fetus to term is dangerous to the mother). But since it is so indistinct, I feel people should be given as much leeway as possible, under the law, to choose. I guess I'm just looking for some manner of consistancy.
"why chose the mother over the fetus?"
I don't know if I can really give you a good answer other than it's what I feel is right. Perhaps a 'bird in the hand...' type mentality I have. I'm not really sure.
I do like to believe that the system is overcrowded. I wouldn't say it's really costing us too much money; I believe in the principle of that and other social welfare programs (if you can show me somewhere more official confirmation of the adequacy of the current system, please do so). I find it hard to believe that with overcrowded public schools and failing social security (among other programs) that things like child services are in fine shape.
I do want to point out that regardless of the state of government programs, the human population is growing mighty fast. Call me whatever you want, but I see no need to work as hard as possible to bring every life into this world that we can.
Like I said, in the end it's all about choice, and we can at least agree that it shouldn't be the people's choice, not the government's.
Belton, my dear friend, you are the victim of a lack of research, misinformation, and...being male.
Rather than actually logically work through your arguments from beginning to end, I can't help but point to the fault in your logic near the end.
I don't know that there was any need to get blatantly pompous there. And come ON, I am a female and agree with almost all of his points. You realize that this can be argued back and forth forever, correct? It's a horrible habit to belittle those against whom you are debating, and to passive-aggressively argue with raw emotion.
I neither think you are misinformed or being male. Being kind to unborn babies is all good and fuzzy thoughts, but let's get real here. The world is falling apart. We can't even feed all the babies we have. So if crazy Christian people want to spread their yay-utopia ideology to my government and make me live by their stupidass teddy bears and hugs rules, they can shove it up their ass.
Okay, I'm a little irritable today.
Post a Comment