A friend posted this ecard pic on facebook. A discussion ensued. Below are my comments.
There are core issues to be addressed in the abortion debate, and every time I hear people talking about it they miss it. They talk about their feelings or the writings in an old book. Never-mind that. There are real, serious, logical and scientific arguments to be made here.
*The Right to Life.
-The woman has her right to (her) life.
-If something threatens that life she has the right to try avoid losing her life.
-The child has a right to (his/her) life.
-The child does not have the capacity to enforce or express that right. (It’s the responsibility of the parent.)
So there is the paradox. If giving birth does not threaten the life/long-term-health of the mother, nor the child, then abortion becomes a question of “who’s interests are being served by killing the child?”
I’d call that a selfish choice, but there are circumstances where giving birth can create problems for the mother and/or child, such as poverty.
Rape is another scenario where people choose abortion. Rape is awful, and the rapist is undeserving of their life, however the resulting child is completely innocent. How is it justifiable to kill the child for the actions of the father?
Let’s look at that differently: I have 2 children and let’s say, for example, I rape someone. Should my child be killed? Maybe that’s a little disconnected because my child isn’t the result of the rape, so how about this: A man rapes a woman, impregnates her and she gives birth. The woman was given the option to abort but could not decide at the moment. Now that the child has been born she decides to abort. Ridiculous? Yes, however the Journal of Medical Ethics disagrees: Journal of Medical Ethics suggests parents should have right to murder their newborn babies, claiming it is same as abortion.
Adoption is a logical alternative to abortion, I think, but then others say that they could not give up their child to someone else. I find that to be a ridiculous statement because abortion is giving up their child permanently. It’s just another selfish argument.
LAW (not man’s law, nor government law)
1. Do No Harm.
2. Cause No Loss.
-Abortion is both harm and loss.
The harm is obvious, and the primary argument from this perspective, however it is also loss because the created (child) is property of the creator (parents).
Everything else is an opinion or belief system that does not address the matter properly. I am happy with my life (that I have it) and I was not WANTed by one of my parents. If that parent got their way, I would have been harmed, I would have lost my life and everything that comes with it. As a parent I know that my wants take a back seat to the needs of my offspring. I want this or that but my child needs something so I suck it up and provide it as best I can.
If one cannot provide, there are others who can, and while I am one of those who choose to keep my child I do everything possible to ensure that I DO keep my children.
Again, tough topic, but it really does need to be addressed. I thought I would google around for a photo to stick into this post, so I typed “abortion” into Google, hit Enter and then clicked on images. Immediately I closed the search results window. Go ahead, try it yourself. I thought about it for a moment and decided to try again. I found a cartoonists political illustration and grabbed it, and while I was considering using it I decided that I needed to look at those horrific images. If abortion is a topic that has to be addressed, then those images are a part of that process. I can think of so many people who would not be able to stomach looking at those photos, yet some of them would in fact participate in an abortion. Perhaps the process of having an abortion (for non-life-threatening reasons) should include a crash course on human embryonic development, complete with a visual guide to abortion.
Well, here are the pics that I decided to use:
Yes, the last 2 are opinion-pieces and obviously slanted towards one perspective.