Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...
1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?
2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?
3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?
4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, and I ache for those who did.
In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.
|
I don't know, I have a hard time debating abortion rights being a guy but I see lots of great arguments for both sides. It just feels right to me to allow the choice for abortion to continue. I don't think killing is a good thing, but it is necessary under certain circumstances. That's just my feeling, and I know it's not a popular one.
See, the whole thing with helping a premature birth-child with life support and tax dollars seems unfair to me. I feel for the child, but like you said that's thousands of tax dollars being used. I'm not going to sit here and state that I know what's best for everyone, but if there was a choice between the infant's life and mother's, I would choose the latter. Hey, it's not always a happy ending when you make a difficult choice, but that's the world we live in.
Also I can't compare theft to abortion. Obviously it's easier to compare murder and abortion since that is what most anti-abortionists believe it is. Yes it is morally wrong to kill someone, but when I think of a fetus I think they are more related to a mother's property than an individual person. Until they are born, they are subject to a 9 month trial period where the mother is in control of their access to life. If she miscarriages, nobody complains because that's a "natural abortion."
I know no matter what there will be people on both sides of this issue, and rightfully so. I just believe the choice isn't about convenience, but really fairness. Is it fair to make a mother or family suffer for a mistake? If a fetus is determined to have terrible disabilities and low probability of life, or a life of pain, is it so bad to reject the birth and suffering? These are choices that you can yes or no to. And that's why the choice should be there to me.
RUgreek