A question to begin. If you are Pro-choice, at what point of a baby's development do you define a line between morality and immorality when considering abortion? There are approximately 40 weeks until a baby comes full term, I would like to know an exact day Pro-choice people are OK with abortion. I would like to know what reasons, past this one day or this one hour, that all of a sudden it's not OK. What changed from this day to that day for you to consider abortion OK or not OK? Take your time and think about this before continuing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lets begin with a few statements that we all know as fact.
1. A full term baby can not survive outside of the womb without some form of intervention. For example, someone has to cut the umbilical cord, someone must clear the nasal passage ways for breathing purposes, and eventually the child must eat.
2. Pro-life and Pro-choice. Pro-life people are for the life of the unborn who cannot take care of themselves. Pro-choice is for those people who believe the choice to deliver a conceived child is solely the choice of the mother.
Pro-choice?...Let's call this what it really is, Pro-abortion. Everyone is for “choice”, so it is easy for people to get behind something that has “choice” in it, but call it Pro-abortion and I think a few would not. Pro-choice gives the belief a benign name so that it seems less offensive, less wrong. The word abortion is such a harsh word.
Let me clear up one issue that really gets to me, the act of procreation is to reproduce. If you and a partner take all measures of precaution to make sure it doesn't happen, but it does...guess what, that was no accident. The process you were performing worked as intended. You can say “well I do it for x reason or for y reason,” but if something happens that you are not prepared for you start looking for ways to abort your situation instead of having something you may consider an inconvenience.
So if two consenting adults, participating in the act of procreation that worked as intended, get pregnant, is it OK to inflict the death penalty on the innocent conceived child? Why would someone do that? Is there really a proper answer here? Some people would argue that as long as the child can't survive on it's own outside the womb then it is OK, BUT we have already established that a full term baby cannot survive outside the womb without some form of intervention (see 1 above)....so....next excuse please.
Now before anyone says I don't think things through fully, I do have some issues that I myself question. If it is a matter of life and death between mother and child, I can understand some hesitations. If a woman was forced, again I can still understand some hesitations. But, when it is two healthy consenting adults and a healthy child, I need some clarity on the point of when it is morally right to end that child's life.
Feel free to post, discuss, ask questions, etc... I will get back to you with a reply. As I stated before, I will be posting my thoughts and why I think a particular way. If you wish to disagree, by all means do so, but please be concise and show reasons as to why you disagree and not just "your wrong, I'm right."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sweet blog, Damian. I know with such a broad topic, it's hard to cover the many reasons against abortion. I think, in my case, the decision is simply scientific. It s a separate human, separate DNA, separate heartbeat... Therefore, an unborn child should be entitled to the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution... I just can't seem to see where lawyers skilled in constitutional law can somehow find freedom of choice in that document...
ReplyDelete