Not only in the arena of politics, but practically everywhere, abortion is a white hot issue. Few issues, if any, have a more polarizing effect on people than this.
I used to take a more libertarian stance on the issue, that is to say that I felt that the choice to have an abortion or to keep the child was up to the would be parents of that child. My own personal belief is that elective abortion is a horrible and shameful act, but did not feel that I have a right to force my own views and opinions upon others. I still maintain that one should not ever force an opinion or belief on others, no matter how passionately he or she feels about it; however, as far as abortion is concerned I had a change of position. Not one based upon emotion, but logic.
My change of position occurred when I heard a talk show host say that abortion is a human rights issue and was non-negotiable. He did not elaborate on his position, but that phrase alone compelled me to review my position. I don't know if I changed views based on the same criteria as this host, but all the same I did eventually change it for my own reasons.
My position hinges on the fact that science cannot conclusively prove at what point a fetus becomes a viable human being. Some argue this transition occurs at conception, others at a specific time during the pregnancy, others at birth, and still others even argue that a child is not a "human being" until it has developed into an individual that thinks for itself and argue that this occurs as late as 4 years old.
I do not intend to argue the sanity, extremity, or fallacies of these positions. I don't believe that emotion or pure opinion have a real place in politics. Rather, I base my position on the fact that science cannot agree on a specific developmental point in which a fetus or child becomes a "human being".
Therefore, if we do not know if a fetus is a child, we should err on the side of good judgement, meaning that if in 20 years we "discover" that a fetus is in fact a human being, I would rather have not been committing or endorsing infanticide for 20 years than have been guilty of such an abhorrence.
Therefore, as government has an obligation to protect all human beings in its jurisdiction, especially the defenseless, then it should also protect those which may be human for the reason outlined above.
There will always be the argument that an abortion is needed in order to save the mother of the child if the child threatens her life. I compare this argument to that of emergency services using triage to select patients that get emergency care first. Sometimes a life in jeopardy is sacrificed to save that of one with a better chance of survival; however, I feel that elective abortion is an absolute violation of human rights.
About the Author
Monday, March 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I used to be against all abortions unless the pregnancy to be terminated was a result of incest or rape. I believe that in those cases, the woman should be able to choose to end the pregnancy, as long as she does so early on - very early.
But I have changed my opinion regarding later abortions. I am still absolutely against abortion as birth control. No question. When a woman chooses to become sexually active, she must accept the consequences of that choice, and it is pretty clear that pregnancy could be one of those consequences.
But I also believe that there are a few cases where an abortion that did not result from incest or rape is okay. Very, very few, but they do still occur. For example, I recently became aware of a couple who found that the baby she was carrying had a genetic disorder which prevented the baby from developing bones. This meant that the baby had no chance of surviving birth - none at all. Zero. The parents learned of this at 16 weeks. They chose to induce labor, and of course, the baby did not survive the birth. Having lost a baby late in pregnancy, I know how devastating that is. But I can't imagine knowing with certainty that your baby will die, but being required by law to carry it to full term anyway.
I guess the point is that while I agree with you that life, no matter when it "officially" begins, should be protected, I am not willing to categorically mandate that no one be allowed to have an abortion. But the "allowance" needs to be very narrow, indeed.
BTW, love this new blog - it gives Jeff and me a lot to talk about.
The question of rape/incest raises a dilemma. I can't imagine the pain a person must feel when dealing with the prospect of bearing a child of that circumstance. That's a difficult circumstance which doesn't seem to have a happy ending.
As far as the baby with a life ending defect, is it really about abortion? The choice of whether to give the baby a chance at life has really already been taken away. So the situation can just as easily be interpreted as being a choice between euthanizing a child in what is presumably a painless manner or letting them die a painful death during or close to childbirth.
I may have overstated my earlier argument. My point was not to categorically ban all abortion unless the mother is threatened, but to suggest that we look at the issue from a human rights perspective. When I said elective abortion should be equated with murder, I was referring to the situation in which a would be mother decides not to have a baby simply because she doesn't want it. If we decide that we are going to treat an unborn child as a human being rather than some biomass, then we must assign to it the same rights as any other human.
On a different note, I'm glad that you're enjoying the blog. I like having an outlet. I may have initially created this blog as a place to vent or "ramble", but simply putting my views down on metaphorical paper helps me to understand my own positions better than when their just loosely connected thoughts floating around in my skull. Sounds silly, I know.
Post a Comment