Evil Homer
10-30-2006, 04:19 PM
WARNING: THIS IS PRETTY LONG. NOT FOR THOSE WITH ADD!
The argument over abortion is both very old and very deep. It has been the subject of endless heated debates, and it is more than likely that this issue will never be fully put to rest. Even in my own mind, the question of the morality of abortion is not one I am prepared to answer. While I am inclined to side with those against abortion, I am still not wholly satisfied with their argument. This matter is much too complex to afford a simple yes or no answer, but unfortunately, this is what the situation calls for. Abortion itself is not so complicated a matter in itself. Most of the debate is really a matter of semantics and definitions. The real complexity of this argument lies actually in the implications of abortion into other matters. The obvious links point towards stem cell research and the death penalty, both of which are extensively talked about. But the matter reaches far deeper into our society. In a “6 degrees of separation” manner, abortion has very strong ties on positions of child support, prostitution, drug laws, alcohol restrictions, and smoking. When all of these issues are looked at together, almost everyone has self conflicting opinions.
The basic argument regarding abortion is the question, “What is the nature of human life?” Since the positions on abortion are so stark, the answer to this question is forced to extremes. Thusly, everyone with an opinion on this is either a flip-flopping hypocrite or a hardcore fanatic. Pro-Lifers are forced to the argument that human life starts as soon as the egg and sperm have joined together, while Pro-Choice people are forced to say that life only begins after birth. Many people will often give a vague, moderate, “middle ground” answer, but when pressed, they will always fall back on one of these two sides. For many years, the middle ground argument would actually work, even if it was ambiguous, because doctors were able to deliver premature babies, which grew into healthy adults. Now, with technology advancing at an increasingly staggering pace, doctors are able to save babies earlier and earlier into development. Even now, it is not far fetched to think of doctors growing human fetuses completely in a lab setting. This is the first fork in the road.
If it is assumed that human life does not start until the baby is born, then an interesting question arises regarding stem cell research. Many people already support the growing of embryos for this research. However, what if, in the future, farms were to be made where doctors would grow fetuses up until the point of birth for the sole purpose of harvesting the organs. Here, many people’s faces change as they start to shiver at the thought of “human farms”. Almost anyone will, at this point, express their extreme dislike of this idea and would likely call it “unconscionable” or “disgusting”. And here the truth comes out; the once hardcore fanatics are actually not as sure as they would have you believe. It is the woman’s right to choose, but if there is no woman, then who does get to choose?
After this argument, one ought to conclude that the Pro-Life camp is certainly in the right, but there are still more factors to consider. If all life is considered sacred, then how can one justify the death penalty, or even more grievous, acts of war? If all human life is equally sacred regardless of one’s actions, then these policies are completely unforgivable. The counter argument to this is that while criminals have sinned and are in right of justice, these babies are completely innocent. However, even this argument is flawed. It may be true that the child’s soul is completely pure, but even though the death row inmate has committed unspeakable crimes and is detestable as a human being, he is still a human being. It is not our position to place judgment on him, for we are all merely men, and none of us is inherently superior to anyone else, and thus have no right to pass judgment. That right may only lie in the hands of the creator.
Some would even go to further extremes as to take the belief that the death penalty, war, violence, and abortion should all be abolished. However, this is a completely infeasible idea and should be regarded as nothing more than a cop out. Solutions only work if they can actually be implemented; anything else is pure folly.
Returning to the earlier question of “Who’s right is it to choose?” I have noticed one subject not often talked about; however, in recent news this seems to be changing. The issue is the rights of the father in determining whether or not an abortion should take place. Also, tied with that is the issue of child support. It seems that either position on this is decidedly unfair to one party or the other. If it’s the woman’s right to choose to have a baby, then I believe it should also be her responsibility. I believe it ludicrous to force the father to pay for a child he did not want. However, there also lies the problem that the father can just take off while the mother is forced to raise the child alone.
In light of this, it would seem fairer to give the father at least some say in the matter. I believe the correct solution is that the decision for an abortion must be made unanimously. If the father is absent and unable to be found to make a decision, then he should get no say. At least this way, power is more equally divided.
Still, yet another issue emerges; if the mother is unable to get an abortion, but dies during child birth, should there be any legal repercussions for this? My instinct says No on this one, but I have not had enough time to ponder the question fully.
Moving on, assuming it is ruled once and for all that it is the woman’s right to do what she wishes with her body, where does this leave the law on prostitution? Anti-prostitution laws were created to prevent the exploitation of women, but if it is ruled that “it’s her body, it’s her choice”, shouldn’t she have the right to decide this for herself. Personally, I agree with the anti-prostitution laws, but this still raises quite a paradox.
Finally, building on that last thought. If a person is in control of his/her own body, shouldn’t they have all rights as to what to do with it? Drug, alcohol, and smoking laws all control and restrict these rights. Current laws have found loopholes so that the government can enact them without any constitutional violations, but I still see certain laws as infringing upon our rights. There may be no way to fight the regulation of growth of marijuana or the sale of alcohol, but the laws regarding its consumptions infringe upon the natural rights of our bodies. Specifically, I see the laws regarding the possession and consumption of illegal drugs as intrusive, as well as the age restrictions on alcohol. I believe that as soon as someone becomes a legal adult, he should have the right to pursue these activities (no matter how degenerative and harmful) at his own leisure. I do not know under what constitutional basis these laws are founded, but I think that they can be fought.
Keep in mind, however, that these positions are merely based upon a series of assumptions. If one of these turns out to be incorrect, then most of the issues described here become moot. Still, at this point in history, the future is quite open, and I encourage you all to discuss these topics at length.
Just my 3 cents.
The argument over abortion is both very old and very deep. It has been the subject of endless heated debates, and it is more than likely that this issue will never be fully put to rest. Even in my own mind, the question of the morality of abortion is not one I am prepared to answer. While I am inclined to side with those against abortion, I am still not wholly satisfied with their argument. This matter is much too complex to afford a simple yes or no answer, but unfortunately, this is what the situation calls for. Abortion itself is not so complicated a matter in itself. Most of the debate is really a matter of semantics and definitions. The real complexity of this argument lies actually in the implications of abortion into other matters. The obvious links point towards stem cell research and the death penalty, both of which are extensively talked about. But the matter reaches far deeper into our society. In a “6 degrees of separation” manner, abortion has very strong ties on positions of child support, prostitution, drug laws, alcohol restrictions, and smoking. When all of these issues are looked at together, almost everyone has self conflicting opinions.
The basic argument regarding abortion is the question, “What is the nature of human life?” Since the positions on abortion are so stark, the answer to this question is forced to extremes. Thusly, everyone with an opinion on this is either a flip-flopping hypocrite or a hardcore fanatic. Pro-Lifers are forced to the argument that human life starts as soon as the egg and sperm have joined together, while Pro-Choice people are forced to say that life only begins after birth. Many people will often give a vague, moderate, “middle ground” answer, but when pressed, they will always fall back on one of these two sides. For many years, the middle ground argument would actually work, even if it was ambiguous, because doctors were able to deliver premature babies, which grew into healthy adults. Now, with technology advancing at an increasingly staggering pace, doctors are able to save babies earlier and earlier into development. Even now, it is not far fetched to think of doctors growing human fetuses completely in a lab setting. This is the first fork in the road.
If it is assumed that human life does not start until the baby is born, then an interesting question arises regarding stem cell research. Many people already support the growing of embryos for this research. However, what if, in the future, farms were to be made where doctors would grow fetuses up until the point of birth for the sole purpose of harvesting the organs. Here, many people’s faces change as they start to shiver at the thought of “human farms”. Almost anyone will, at this point, express their extreme dislike of this idea and would likely call it “unconscionable” or “disgusting”. And here the truth comes out; the once hardcore fanatics are actually not as sure as they would have you believe. It is the woman’s right to choose, but if there is no woman, then who does get to choose?
After this argument, one ought to conclude that the Pro-Life camp is certainly in the right, but there are still more factors to consider. If all life is considered sacred, then how can one justify the death penalty, or even more grievous, acts of war? If all human life is equally sacred regardless of one’s actions, then these policies are completely unforgivable. The counter argument to this is that while criminals have sinned and are in right of justice, these babies are completely innocent. However, even this argument is flawed. It may be true that the child’s soul is completely pure, but even though the death row inmate has committed unspeakable crimes and is detestable as a human being, he is still a human being. It is not our position to place judgment on him, for we are all merely men, and none of us is inherently superior to anyone else, and thus have no right to pass judgment. That right may only lie in the hands of the creator.
Some would even go to further extremes as to take the belief that the death penalty, war, violence, and abortion should all be abolished. However, this is a completely infeasible idea and should be regarded as nothing more than a cop out. Solutions only work if they can actually be implemented; anything else is pure folly.
Returning to the earlier question of “Who’s right is it to choose?” I have noticed one subject not often talked about; however, in recent news this seems to be changing. The issue is the rights of the father in determining whether or not an abortion should take place. Also, tied with that is the issue of child support. It seems that either position on this is decidedly unfair to one party or the other. If it’s the woman’s right to choose to have a baby, then I believe it should also be her responsibility. I believe it ludicrous to force the father to pay for a child he did not want. However, there also lies the problem that the father can just take off while the mother is forced to raise the child alone.
In light of this, it would seem fairer to give the father at least some say in the matter. I believe the correct solution is that the decision for an abortion must be made unanimously. If the father is absent and unable to be found to make a decision, then he should get no say. At least this way, power is more equally divided.
Still, yet another issue emerges; if the mother is unable to get an abortion, but dies during child birth, should there be any legal repercussions for this? My instinct says No on this one, but I have not had enough time to ponder the question fully.
Moving on, assuming it is ruled once and for all that it is the woman’s right to do what she wishes with her body, where does this leave the law on prostitution? Anti-prostitution laws were created to prevent the exploitation of women, but if it is ruled that “it’s her body, it’s her choice”, shouldn’t she have the right to decide this for herself. Personally, I agree with the anti-prostitution laws, but this still raises quite a paradox.
Finally, building on that last thought. If a person is in control of his/her own body, shouldn’t they have all rights as to what to do with it? Drug, alcohol, and smoking laws all control and restrict these rights. Current laws have found loopholes so that the government can enact them without any constitutional violations, but I still see certain laws as infringing upon our rights. There may be no way to fight the regulation of growth of marijuana or the sale of alcohol, but the laws regarding its consumptions infringe upon the natural rights of our bodies. Specifically, I see the laws regarding the possession and consumption of illegal drugs as intrusive, as well as the age restrictions on alcohol. I believe that as soon as someone becomes a legal adult, he should have the right to pursue these activities (no matter how degenerative and harmful) at his own leisure. I do not know under what constitutional basis these laws are founded, but I think that they can be fought.
Keep in mind, however, that these positions are merely based upon a series of assumptions. If one of these turns out to be incorrect, then most of the issues described here become moot. Still, at this point in history, the future is quite open, and I encourage you all to discuss these topics at length.
Just my 3 cents.