  READER'S REPLIES: [Reply #1] [Reply #2] [Reply #3] [Reply #4] [Reply #5] [Reply #6] [Reply #7] [Reply #8] [Reply #9] [Reply #10] Tell me what YOU think! Back to Philosophy page |
 I support what is generally referred to as "a woman's right to choose". In plain English, this means that I feel the decision of whether or not to abort a fetus belongs primarily to the woman who is carrying it. In a perfect world,
abortion would never be used as "after-the-fact" birth control. In a perfect
world, no woman would ever get pregnant against her will. In a perfect world,
no child would ever be born who was not wanted or who could not be adequately
supported. In a perfect world, there would be no such thing as gruesome birth
defects. Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a perfect world, nor, are we
likely to do so any time in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I feel that
abortion must remain an option.The Bible-thumpers
will rant and rave about "murdering babies" - despite all medical evidence to
the contrary. I feel that this argument smacks of little more than attempting
to force-feed their own morality to those who don't wish to partake of it.
Combine this with the staggeringly incompetent view that it doesn't matter even
if the woman became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and the religious
argument(s) against abortion aren't worth t he effort that it takes to shout
them out.The strongest
argument against abortion concerns the question "When does life begin?". Since
our legal system has many laws prohibiting the taking of human life, if it can
be conclusively demonstrated that "human life" also applies to an unborn fetus,
then those laws would also apply. However, our legal system never has granted
the other rights and privileges of "human life" to the unborn. For example,
they are not counted among the country's population until after birth.
Expectant parents cannot take tax credits for unborn children. Death
certificates are not filed for stillborn fetuses, and so on. To make the
moralistic "life begins at conception" argument a legal fact would bring about
all make and manner of ugly ramifications that would have no justification
either in medical fact or in societal custom.Without the
supporting medical evidence, it becomes very difficult to force the moralistic
argument against abortion onto those who are non-Christian and, therefore, do
not believe in what the Bible might have to say. That would be just as
foolhardy an effort as it would be to force a non-Muslim or a non-Hindu to act
in a certain way just because the holy books of those religions says to act that
way.Until such time as
medical evidence proves otherwise, I think it's clear that the unborn can not be
regarded as being "human" - at least in the eyes of the law. Therefore,
abortion should not be outlawed and must remain an option. Not a pleasant
option, for sure, but an option nonetheless.E-mail: mlbakke1@earthlink.net Earthlink Network Home Page |