Tuesday, 11 October 2011
-
Why Abortion Is Not Black and White
In the great abortion debate of our time, both sides tend to villainize the other. Pro-lifers see their opponents as those who don't respect life, sometimes treating pro-choicers as murderers akin to Hitler. Pro-choice advocates often see the other side as oppressive; pro-lifers want to force young women into raising children in less-than-perfect circumstances.I think both sides are generally blind to the arguments of their opponents when they use such extreme rhetoric. For that reason, I'm going to try to present arguments for both sides from a moral/ethical viewpoint.
Abortion Cons: Why Pro-lifers Are Right
-Almost any scientist would argue that a fetus is alive, so the argument that life begins at conception is appropriate. A fetus has the appropriate chromosome number (i.e. its cells are diploid), it consists of cells, it grows, it undergoes metabolism, etc. If anyone were to argue that its lack of independence and awareness prevents it from being truly alive, then one has to wonder if newborn babies and people with certain mental illnesses are truly alive. So in short, fetuses from a biological perspective are alive, and to terminate a life is generally considered murder.-A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. They have had four children: one has died, the other three have what is considered to be a terminal illness. The mother is pregnant. Do you recommend abortion? You just killed Beethoven. I have read that this story is slightly inaccurate, but the point still remains: abortion could rob the world of great human potential. When I drive to my hometown, I always pass a billboard picture of a fetus that says "I was going to cure cancer", implying that the fetus was aborted. It is quite possible that we have aborted some of the greatest humans that could ever have been.
-For Christians, you can read verses about God forming a baby in the womb and planning their future. If we can see potential in an unborn child, how much more does God see?
-Abortion can be terribly traumatizing. Apparently studies have shown that such trauma rare, but Google "abortion pictures" and see if you would be okay with calling those mangled bodies "just fetuses". I am not a woman, but I'm sure I'd find it a bit disturbing, at least if I waited until several months in.
-Adoption is a viable alternative that wouldn't rob the child of its life. Many would-be adopters would be willing to pay for the medical expenses, and it would be a blessing for those couples that aren't able to have children on their own.
Abortion Pros: Why Pro-Choicers Are Right
-Life begins at conception, but does that mean a three-week old fetus is the same kind of life as a twelve-year old child? If you aborted the former, it would have had no knowledge of it's existence, no possessions to be robbed of, no joy of life to lose, and no emotional connection with any other being. The latter likely has all of these things. Many people are okay with euthanizing people in comas and most people put their pets down if they're terribly sick, and yet these beings possess more of those qualities than a fetus does. So how is ending the life of a fetus the same thing as ending the life of a child?-A man and his niece incestuously conceive a child out of wedlock. That baby and a second that follows both die in infancy. They are pregnant with a third child and they don't abort it. That child, in the picture above, is responsible for World War II and the Holocaust. Just as the story about Beethoven shows that we can rob the world of human potential for good, this story about Hitler shows that we're also likely to be saving the world from terrible evil.
-Many Christians believe that God gives a baby its spirit in the womb. They also tend to believe that if a child dies before a certain age of moral responsibility, then they will automatically go to Heaven. Perhaps it is related to Jesus' statement that we should enter the Kingdom of God like little children (Luke 18:17). I'm sure few would argue against that, considering young children are the spitting image of innocence. So by that same reasoning, wouldn't aborting a child send them unquestionably to Heaven? Therefore, abortions could be interpreted as acts of mercy, sending millions of souls to Heaven. I know if it were myself, and I had the choice of a) living a life where I could go to Hell or Heaven for eternity or b) automatically ensuring I would go to Heaven, let's jut say I wouldn't hesitate to choose b.
-Raising an unwanted child, especially if the mother is doing it alone, can be terribly traumatizing for multiple parties. Having children is the single greatest predictor of poverty amongst single mothers. Children who grow up in impoverished conditions are more likely to have difficulties in adult life than those who grow up in better conditions. Children are unquestionably expensive, and certainly the difficulties of raising them would be compounded if the child was unwanted. A 16-year old having an abortion might not just be saving her life from being ruined, but the child's life as well.
Can You See Both Sides?
My personal thoughts on the matter are complex and look at both sides of the argument. In short, I don't ever want to have decide whether or not my wife should have an abortion. It might not be traumatizing, but it may well be. Hopefully I wouldn't feel guilty, but perhaps I would. I'd rather not wonder what my child could have been, but I probably would. I'd rather not have to deal with any of the ethical questions surrounding this.But there's another side to all of this. I want to have a child or children only when my wife and I are ready. This isn't just for us, but it's primarily for the child. We'd want to do everything we can to ensure that the child doesn't have to experience poverty, gets the opportunity to travel and go to a great school, sees what a healthy marriage looks like, and gets all of the emotional attention that it needs to develop into a healthy adult. So if my wife and I are still in college, still broke, and still learning how to make our relationship healthy with all the other difficulties of life, then I want to do everything I can to keep a child from entering that world.
What I hope others could draw from this is that this is a complex decision for many people who see good points on both sides. For this reason, be careful about passing judgment about others' opinions on the matter. Many Pro-lifers have a very high view of unborn children, and that is to their credit. However, many Pro-choicers do as well, they just see it from a different perspective.
Can you think of any other arguments against abortion? For abortion? For Pro-lifers: do you think people who have abortions are always wrong for killing an unborn child? For Pro-choicers: do you think people who want abortions to cease completely are wrong for feeling that way?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: kk_grayfox@xanga
- Name: Chris
- About Me: I love God and I'm a Ph. D student in evolutionary biology, focusing on mammalian systematics and the molecular evolution of vision genes. I'm fascinated by research dealing with the nature of consciousness, and the interface between science and spirituality.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 9 Views: 0 28900 Comments: 0 947 View all posts by kk_grayfox@xanga
Comments (231)
There is nothing specifically Christian about the points made here, and no provision is made for God's involvement or purposes. Can you address this from a biblical perspective and show me anything that supports your pro-abortion arguments?
@Roadkill_Spatula@xanga - I would tend to agree. This is supposed to be the Christian nook of Xanga. So make this a biblical case.
While I have already understood the points that pro-abortionists have, I have to say that they are rooted in self interest disguised as mercy for the unborn child.
The different situations may not be black and white, however whether or not to abort an unborn child is black & white IMO.
for me, the issue is the legal status of a fetus. unlike an infant or grown child, a fetus is physically dependent upon a single other human being: the woman carrying it. and unlike parenthood post-birth, that dependency cannot simply be transferred to someone else. so, i think the ONLY person who can decide whether that dependency will continue should be the woman. i'm not interested in forcing anyone into parenthood, and i don't see sex as consent to be pregnant anymore than it's consent to become infected with HIV.
not to mention, i find most "pro-lifers" to be hypocrites. as most are conservatives, they're often the first to vote against providing teens with comprehensive sex education, and they seem to care very little for children outside of the womb. i prefer to call them anti-choice, because it's a better description of their stance.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - pro-choice =/= pro-abortion. it's not like we're going around telling women to abort all their fetuses indiscriminately.
@Roadkill_Spatula@xanga - You are correct in saying that God hasn't been mentioned at all. God is the One who gives life. All of these "arguments" for abortion are nothing but rationalizations for the acts that people wish to commit regardless of God. This is just advanced social planning on a personal level. The other person who is not consulted besides God is the child whom they have decided will be better off being killed in the womb..
The Holey Babble should have nothing to do with the legality of abortion so leave it out of that debate. Not everyone believes in that book, so it's a moot point and an invalid argument. Period.
The ancient Greeks taught mankind that everything has a nature. From beginning to end, a thing, whatever it is, has a nature.
The fetus then is just as human as the newborn or the 12 year old or the 97 year old. For it's nature is human. This is so because at no point between conception and death is the human being anything but itself. It is not dog or cat or fish. It is human.
Murder of any human being at whatever stage of life deprives that human being of his future. And even if a person possesses nothing he still possesses his own life and the promise of his future. And who has the authority to wantonly rob the unborn of his life and all the promise that the future holds?
There is a five year old girl I know who was born with essentially no brain (lissencephaly). Her intellectual development is little more advanced than that of a fetus. However, her mother treasured her as much as any other child. If it is not appropriate to terminate her, how is it then appropriate to terminate an unborn child? You cannot give humanity to one without the other if consciousness is your cutoff for valuable life, in which case you should argue much more strongly for eugenics or euthanasia or classist society.. which you unnervingly do in the pro-choice arguments that amount to little more than a chilling utilitarianism. How sad that you describe a "benefit" to abortion as terminating Hitler at the same time that you reason with the same Hegelian philosophy that justified his crimes.
Simply because a decision is complex does not mean there is no right solution.
@Roadkill_Spatula@xanga - @MyTwoCentss@xanga - @quest4god -
I most certainly did mention God in this entry:
"For Christians, you can read verses about God forming a baby in the womb
and planning their future. If we can see potential in an unborn child,
how much more does God see?"
"Many Christians believe that God gives a baby its spirit in the womb.
They also tend to believe that if a child dies before a certain age of
moral responsibility, then they will automatically go to Heaven. Perhaps
it is related to Jesus' statement that we should enter the Kingdom of
God like little children (Luke 18:17). I'm sure few would argue against
that, considering young children are the spitting image of innocence.
So by that same reasoning, wouldn't aborting a child send them
unquestionably to Heaven? Therefore, abortions could be interpreted as
acts of mercy, sending millions of souls to Heaven. I know if it were
myself, and I had the choice of a) living a life where I could go to
Hell or Heaven for eternity or b) automatically ensuring I would go to
Heaven, let's jut say I wouldn't hesitate to choose b."
I could have dropped a few more verses, and looking back at it it does seem a bit depauperate in that department so I apologize for that.
But to be honest, the Bible says nothing on the subject so there isn't a ton for me to go off of.
The arguments I made were truly based off of Biblical principles, however, and I'm assuming that those that would discuss this subject would be Christian anyway. So there were assumptions in how this would proceed. It's not like I'm trying to talk about this in a secular forum.
@Roadkill_Spatula@xanga - "Can you address this from a biblical perspective and show me anything that supports your pro-abortion arguments?"
Sure, Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12). For that reason, I wouldn't want to be raised in a broken home or by a single mother who didn't want me, so it would be loving and merciful to end my earthly existence before I come into that situation. I'm not conscious and I wouldn't remember anything, so by that rationale it's not equivalent to murder in the typical sense. Plus, the typical Christian reasoning is that all babies go to Heaven (based off of Matthew 18:3, apparently), so that would be the ultimate act of mercy.
Like I mentioned in the previous comment, however, I don't believe that there hardly is a case against abortion in the Bible which ultimately is an important point for my argument: this issue is a gray area.
You forgot the most important issue here... a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. She alone can decide what she puts herself through.
But... the unborn child is alive and human. It too has rights to what happens to its own body.
Plus, you don't discuss abortions for the health of the woman. There are a few rare situations where abortion may be necessary. What if she was raped? Why should anyone force a woman to carry the child of her rapist if she chooses to not carry the baby?
Bottom line... in America (with separation of church and state) this issue has no right answer. Though, I wish abortions after 8/10 weeks were all illegal except for the mother's health. And as far as I recall, abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. And abortions used to be performed historically before quickening (mother can feel the baby moving inside) quite often.
Thank you for discussing some points more thoroughly. I have to write a paper myself that's due tomorrow.. and it's a great help for starters.
"Many Christians believe that God gives a baby its spirit in the womb. They also tend to believe that if a child dies before a certain age of moral responsibility, then they will automatically go to Heaven. Perhaps it is related to Jesus' statement that we should enter the Kingdom of God like little children (Luke 18:17). I'm sure few would argue against that, considering young children are the spitting image of innocence. So by that same reasoning, wouldn't aborting a child send them unquestionably to Heaven? Therefore, abortions could be interpreted as acts of mercy, sending millions of souls to Heaven."
This rationalization is awful in my opinion. Mercy killing is still killing no matter what name you give it and God doesn't condone it.
I know I might be the odd one out, but abortion is very black and white to me and it's not something I will ever support.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - "While I have already understood the points that pro-abortionists have,I have to say that they are rooted in self interest disguised as mercy for the unborn child. "
Be careful when judging people's motives.
"This is supposed to be the Christian nook of Xanga. So make this a biblical case. "
For something to be Christian, it doesn't need to be explicitly Biblical. Jesus taught things that weren't "Biblical".
And by that same rationale, you can't make cases for tons of things on Revelife then because if the Bible doesn't speak about it can't be Christian (if I understood your comment). So Christians can't talk about the vast majority of physics, diets, dating relationships, porn addiction, etc. Except, of course, I know the average Christian would say, "But the principles are there." I generally agree (though many of them are vague, like in the case of abortion) and that's why I made arguments that are consistent with Christians ideas without mentioning specific verses for every point. I don't need to say, "This is merciful" and then quote a verse about mercy for me to get my point across, do I?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "unlike an infant or grown child, a fetus is physically dependent upon a single other human being: the woman carrying it."
Wouldn't you agree that newborns and other young children are physically, if not physiologically, dependent on the mother and/or father? What about the infirm elderly? Or people with handicaps? Should those people be at the whim of the caretaker's decisions?
I don't know if they should or shouldn't, and this is the ultimate question about whether or not the state should get involved in any of these cases.
@quest4god - " All of these "arguments" for abortion are
nothing but rationalizations for the acts that people wish to commit
regardless of God. "
Unfortunately you've never been in these people's shoes so it's unwise to claim to know their motives.
"The other person who is not consulted besides
God is the child whom they have decided will be better off being killed
in the womb.."
So how can a 5 week old fetus be consulted?
What if someone told you they consulted God and He didn't say 'no' or even said 'yes, go ahead with the abortion'?
@kk_grayfox@xanga - I agree with you here. People on life support are totally dependent on other people, but they are still alive.
I can't believe people use the "it's not a person", "it's not human" argument. That's just silly. They should just stick to the part where it is the woman's body.
@StatelessPilot - "Of course. In an ideal world abortion would not be a reality, but we don't live in an ideal world."
One of my best friends says this verbatim! But yes, I generally agree. If it were my decision, abortions would never ever need to exist because contraception would be perfect and people wouldn't make dumb choices on this issue.
" Legal abortion is sadly a necessary evil and
I cringe as I think of the alternative: gross overpopulation (even
worse than we have now and truth be told we could use to cut the world
population in about half), increase in poverty, decrease in overall
education levels, millions more children without homes"
I don't think abortion should ever be a solution for the world population problem. If you already have two kids and you don't want to contribute more, get fixed. The thought of someone getting abortions after having children is a bit disturbing.
"That's not even mentioning people like me who
despise children getting stuck with them and being miserable for the
rest of our lives."
Lol, feel free to knock on wood but I'm going to laugh if you inadvertently have kids and end up loving them!
@RoaminCatholic - "The ancient Greeks taught mankind that everything has a nature. From beginning to end, a thing, whatever it is, has a nature. "
As much as I respect the Ancient Greeks, this is just an element of their philosophy and not necessarily fact.
"The
fetus then is just as human as the newborn or the 12 year old or the 97
year old. For it's nature is human. This is so because at no point
between conception and death is the human being anything but itself. It
is not dog or cat or fish. It is human."
From a biological perspective, I'd agree with you. In every other sense of the meaning, I would disagree. A person born with half a brain or an inability to have any sort of meaningful existence is not the same thing as you or me.
From a Biblical perspective, humans are spirit so we're not defined by our bodies and thus a fetus isn't either.
"And even if a person possesses nothing he
still possesses his own life and the promise of his future. And who has
the authority to wantonly rob the unborn of his life and all the promise
that the future holds?"
So I assume you're against the death penalty then? Or the assassination of Bin Laden? Killing Hitler? I'm being partially facetious but we apparently have rules for when "thou shalt not murder" is no longer a commandment to be obeyed.
@WasaiWarrior@xanga - "However, her mother treasured her as much as
any other child. If it is not appropriate to terminate her, how is it
then appropriate to terminate an unborn child?"
But who says it's not appropriate to terminate her? Does she say that? If you euthanized her, would she plead for mercy saying she still wanted to live? If she's not conscious, functional, truly human, then why must the mother continue to keep her alive?
" You cannot give humanity to one without the
other if consciousness is your cutoff for valuable life, in which case
you should argue much more strongly for eugenics or euthanasia or
classist society.. which you unnervingly do in the pro-choice arguments
that amount to little more than a chilling utilitarianism. How sad that you describe a "benefit" to
abortion as terminating Hitler at the same time that you reason with the
same Hegelian philosophy that justified his crimes. "
That's an unfair assessment of what I'm arguing for. I'm not saying this from a utilitarian perspective and I think eugenics is an awful idea. I'm saying this from the perspective of mercy for the child.
Pro-lifers always point to scenarios where someone kept the child and how the child was so very happy once they grew up. This is confirmatory bias because there are certainly cases where the parents regret everything, the child wishes they didn't exist, and nothing good comes out of it at all.
@TiredSoVeryTired@xanga - I appreciate your points. I didn't mention every single notion, partially because I notice Revelife doesn't like to post longer entries (so I kept it short).
But yes, I agree. You have the issue of the woman's body but also the child's life. When you have such a close symbiosis between the organisms, it's hard to say which one has the 'rights'.
@surelyslim@xanga - "Thank you for
discussing some points more thoroughly. I have to write a paper myself
that's due tomorrow.. and it's a great help for starters."
Good thing you checked Revelife when you did then, instead of writing your paper...lol!
@CecilliaMarie@xanga - "This rationalization is awful in my opinion.
Mercy killing is still killing no matter what name you give it and God
doesn't condone it. "
So are you against the death penalty? Killing Bin Laden? What if you killed someone who broke into your house? Killing is still killing no matter what name you give it, right?
Regardless I don't disagree that the rationalization is bad. But then again, it's probably because the concept behind Heaven and Hell is pretty bad. If all children go to Heaven, then who are you to deny them?
"I know I might be the odd one out, but abortion is very black and white to me and it's not something I will ever support.
"
You're not the odd one out. Almost everyone on Revelife will agree with you. I personally don't mind if you never support abortion. In a sense, I don't 'support' it either. The main issue is that pro-lifers seem to be completely insensitive to pro-choicers and their reasons for going through with an abortion, and they tend to judge them as being heartless, selfish miscreants (two people have already commented as such on this entry).
@kk_grayfox@xanga - I understand. I think this point women's body vs. child's body is why it is such a debatable issue. Studies used to show that most people aren't totally for nor totally against abortion. I don't know about nowadays.
I always say at least those teen-moms in high school kept the baby instead of getting abortion.
One argument I could say is the thing you said about sending babies directly to heaven. You can't say that. We have inhereted sin from Adam and Eve. and we wash away that sin through baptism. so the babies killed because of abortion are not exactly clean.
I'm against it. And I just wish fewer and fewer people have to make these kind of decisions. if the baby is conceived out of wedlock, the baby shouldn't have to atone for other people's sins.
overpopulation, so what? no matter how many humans there are, we are still destroying it somehow almost simply by just living.