Abortion {old lj}
Aug. 5th, 2005 03:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pandora_parrotNote, this entry was originally published on my old blog back in 2005. I have ported it here for completion.
The abortion debate really really annoys me. *gets up on my soapbox*
Here's why:
One side says, "There is a LIFE inside there, and it is wrong and BARBARIC to "CHOOSE" to MURDER that life."
The other side says, "The woman's body is her OWN, and she can CHOOOSE what she decides to do with it."
I think both sides are so caught up in their own dogma that they fail to recognize that they both have a point.
Pro-Life people indicate that there is a human life inside the womb. I think it is ludicrous to assume that humanity is only ascribed after passing a certain position within the woman's body. Despite what most Pro-Choice people say, that IS a child, and it IS human, and therefore it DOES have "rights".
Pro-Choice people indicate that a woman has full and utter control over her body. I think it is ludicrous to assume that a person cannot choose to do whatever they want with their own body. There are very few things that are truly and completely personal and private. What you do to yourself should be of no concern to anyone else. Despite what most Pro-Life people say, a woman's body IS her own, and she HAS the right to decide what she will do with it.
So they're pretty much diametrically opposed... and I agree with both sides.
Huh?
This is one of the many battlegrounds for "Liberty vs. Freedom". I believe the child has a right to life, and I believe the mother has the freedom to choose. Does the child's right to life trump the mother's freedom or vice versa?
First, we have to recognize that contrary to popular belief, there really is a human being in that womb. It's not a "fetus" and it's not a "collection of cells", or at least it isn't after a particular point in its development. But that point is far earlier than birth. A child doesn't magically become a person once it exits the mother. This point is vital to understanding where to go from here. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a child isn't a child simply ignores the facts.
So the debate should be characterized as a question of whether or not a person may choose to kill another person that utterly depends on the first person. This should be considered regardless of age, gender, etc. Or if the language is too harsh, change "choose to kill another person" to "choose to allow another person to die." Once the debate is framed in this way, it can be approached honestly by both sides. Until this point, neither side is going to make any sense, in my humble opinion.
So what do I believe? It seems to me that your personal right to freedom trumps the lives of any and all of those that depend on you. Although it is immoral to out and out "murder" another person, it is certainly moral to cease support for your dependents. At this point, your dependents must either become the dependents of someone else, or they must find a way to live on their own. This part is really muddy. Right now it seems to me that it might be the responsibility of the state to take care of those that are dependent on others, but have no one to depend on, but I could be wrong about this.
*gets off soapbox* That's my opinion, but to be honest, I'm not really sure about the issues. I do think both sides fail to properly characterize the argument, but what the result of that argument should be, I'm not really sure at all.
I'm not too familiar with the feminist-focused arguments for/against abortion, but those of you that don't know, there are many arguments discussing the social implications of forced pregnancy. Furthermore, there is certainly an argument for population reduction on the planet. More babies just makes more problems, in this regard. We need to reduce the population, not increase it!
*reads over this article* Wow... I don't like the way I sound in this... Do I come off too preachy? *laughs* I did used to be a total christian moralist, you know... ;P I blame it on that. Old habits die hard.
The abortion debate really really annoys me. *gets up on my soapbox*
Here's why:
One side says, "There is a LIFE inside there, and it is wrong and BARBARIC to "CHOOSE" to MURDER that life."
The other side says, "The woman's body is her OWN, and she can CHOOOSE what she decides to do with it."
I think both sides are so caught up in their own dogma that they fail to recognize that they both have a point.
Pro-Life people indicate that there is a human life inside the womb. I think it is ludicrous to assume that humanity is only ascribed after passing a certain position within the woman's body. Despite what most Pro-Choice people say, that IS a child, and it IS human, and therefore it DOES have "rights".
Pro-Choice people indicate that a woman has full and utter control over her body. I think it is ludicrous to assume that a person cannot choose to do whatever they want with their own body. There are very few things that are truly and completely personal and private. What you do to yourself should be of no concern to anyone else. Despite what most Pro-Life people say, a woman's body IS her own, and she HAS the right to decide what she will do with it.
So they're pretty much diametrically opposed... and I agree with both sides.
Huh?
This is one of the many battlegrounds for "Liberty vs. Freedom". I believe the child has a right to life, and I believe the mother has the freedom to choose. Does the child's right to life trump the mother's freedom or vice versa?
First, we have to recognize that contrary to popular belief, there really is a human being in that womb. It's not a "fetus" and it's not a "collection of cells", or at least it isn't after a particular point in its development. But that point is far earlier than birth. A child doesn't magically become a person once it exits the mother. This point is vital to understanding where to go from here. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that a child isn't a child simply ignores the facts.
So the debate should be characterized as a question of whether or not a person may choose to kill another person that utterly depends on the first person. This should be considered regardless of age, gender, etc. Or if the language is too harsh, change "choose to kill another person" to "choose to allow another person to die." Once the debate is framed in this way, it can be approached honestly by both sides. Until this point, neither side is going to make any sense, in my humble opinion.
So what do I believe? It seems to me that your personal right to freedom trumps the lives of any and all of those that depend on you. Although it is immoral to out and out "murder" another person, it is certainly moral to cease support for your dependents. At this point, your dependents must either become the dependents of someone else, or they must find a way to live on their own. This part is really muddy. Right now it seems to me that it might be the responsibility of the state to take care of those that are dependent on others, but have no one to depend on, but I could be wrong about this.
*gets off soapbox* That's my opinion, but to be honest, I'm not really sure about the issues. I do think both sides fail to properly characterize the argument, but what the result of that argument should be, I'm not really sure at all.
I'm not too familiar with the feminist-focused arguments for/against abortion, but those of you that don't know, there are many arguments discussing the social implications of forced pregnancy. Furthermore, there is certainly an argument for population reduction on the planet. More babies just makes more problems, in this regard. We need to reduce the population, not increase it!
*reads over this article* Wow... I don't like the way I sound in this... Do I come off too preachy? *laughs* I did used to be a total christian moralist, you know... ;P I blame it on that. Old habits die hard.
