Pro-choice advocates argue that if pro-lifers criminalize abortion, they will incur an even greater evil than they seek to avoid because abortions will be forced into the back allies—a dirty and dangerous black market. Although I oppose abortion, I believe that its supporters are absolutely correct on this point; legislation won’t fix the problem. This is because the problem is not in the legislation; the problem is in the mindsets and beliefs that allowed abortion to become acceptable in our society. If we are to eliminate abortion, we must not seek merely to change laws, but to change hearts and minds.
We need to make abortion unthinkable, not just illegal. If abortion were made illegal, there is indeed the risk of a black market. Women facing crisis pregnancy are frightened and desperate enough to go through with back ally procedures. This atrocity is more grievous than the atrocities we face today—women deserve better. Humanity deserves better. This is why we must not simply make abortion illegal; we must make it unconscionable.
The women of our society must be protected from exploitation and from painful experiences like abortion. If this is t occur we must restore value and dignity to what it means to be a female human. A simple glance at our media is enough to indicate that women are objectified and exploited for their sexuality, because sex sells. This is indicative of a mindset of hedonism, promiscuity and exploitation which leads to imprudent sexual behavior, countless unwanted pregnancies, and a call for a "solution."
Although men are responsible for much of the exploitation that occurs, they are not the only ones at fault. Many women pursue and allure without discretion, flaunting their bodies and hearts as things easily won and conquered. I believe this to be the result of a few different things. Women have bought into the idea that they are objects. It is an appealing idea because women are not just any objects: they are objects of beauty, objects of desire, and desirable objects possess great power. Unfortunately, our society does not properly understand that power, or the beauty and desire. We do not understand these things in light of human dignity, but as tools for use and manipulation, because (we assume) in some situations, people just don’t have a choice but to respond in a certain way. Indeed, the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood are communicating to youth that, with ninety-five percent of Americans having premarital sex, they hardly have a choice—they are bound to do the same, so why even bother to promote abstinence? (find the article at http://www.lifenews.com/nat2841.html) This denies a crucial element of human dignity and responsibility—the human will. Humans are not mere objects that can't make choices and exist to be used; we are volitional beings, created to be loved. In this sense, I am pro-choice. Men and women have a choice about sex, and with this choice comes the responsibility to behave with discretion. They also have the responsibility to make wise decisions on behalf of their children, born or unborn.
If we are to protect women from exploitation and abortion, we must address these problems at their roots. We must counter the trends of promiscuity and imprudence that bring forth hundreds of unwanted pregnancies. We must oppose the idea that it is okay to take the life of an innocent person simply because they are not yet born. In order to accomplish this, we must help people see the truth about their great worth and responsibility as humans. We will not eradicate abortion from our society until we can infiltrate it with an understanding of the value and dignity that belongs to every human being.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For me the life of the unborn infant doesn't begin at conception, but 28 days later when it is infused with blood holding to Leviticus 17 in which it says "the life is in the blood." That's not to condone the morning after pill or any of those other anti-contraceptives. Just FYI.
You make an interesting point about the perspective about not just society but women viewing themselves as objects. I don't think I have a solution for that (at least not a politically correct one).
I'm surprised some poliltician didn't try a "Don't kill future voters!" campaign. That would have been funny but in a way true. Don't really care much for politicians. Even the greek definition is scarry. Poli= many; ticians= blood sucking parasites. So politicians are little more than blood sucking parasites.
Ok, bad joke!
This blog rocks, keep the ideas coming!
That is an interesting point that you brought up out of Leviticus. I am not sure, however, that this is the sense in which we are to understand Leviticus 17:11, based on the context of the verse, aa well as the scientific proof that life begins at conception. Leviticus 17 talks about the life blood being poured out on the altar for attonement: if the blood of the flesh was poured out, the flesh was clearly no longer living. Blood is obviously essential to the life of a fully developed human body(as is signified in this passage), but I do not know if we can draw from Leviticus that the flesh is lifeless without blood at a time in its developement when it is not intended to have blood and does not need blood to survive.
Scientifically, a zygot (the single-celled biological entity formed at conception) is alive. It has its own DNA containing all the necessary genetic material to form a full grown human, and it manifests the four necessary traits of a living being: metabolizm, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction of cells. The only things it needs to survive are oxygen, food and water, just like any born person. Therefore, we must take this young life very seriously and treat it with the dignity due to a human being.
The way I read (interpreted) the verse is that when it says "for the life of…" the word 'life' has a footnote in my NASB, and the footnote reads: "Literally soul, and so throughout the ch."
So, I thought "the 'soul' of the flesh is in the blood." Then looking at verse 14 I thought it backed up the claim: "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life." -17:14
That of course being that the blood is analogously compared to the soul.
But, I think I'm going to have to give you the point on the 411 of embryology. Clearly you know more about this than I do.
Hey Autumn, this is Brett . . .
that is very good that you are passionate about these issues and that you care about those affected by abortion . . .
Even growing up in an evangelical home, I never quite understood the anti-abortion position, so I was curious if you could outline your position for me.
What I don't understand is that a child for a few months (I seem to recall) cannot feel pain, becuase their nerves are not developed. It seems very likely that they would not be emotionally sentient at that point, especially becuase grown adults can get a frontal labodami (just a part of their brain removed) and then they will feel nothing. If the complex biological system of a person can feel no pain if a little brain is removed, that it becomes entirely doubtful in my mind that a zygote would feel anything if it was broken up by a day after pill.
The only thing I here as a pro-life defence is that zygotes, even if they can't feel, at least have the potential to feel. That is true, but a isolated sperm and egg also possess that same potential, so it seems to be consistent we should treat those items with similar concern, for instance, by never using birth control (which actually some Christians do do, like the Catholics). I have also heard (from my mom) that to have an early abortion violates God's plan, but again, condoms do the same thing, just as contact lenses, surgery, penecillin, cars . . .and almost everything we use in this modern day and age. To me, without thinking about it much, I feel that that exhausts the main contentions against abortion, but I am sure that you have thought more about it and know about about than me. If you could just outline to me something I would have overlooked, that would be great, take care.
Hi Brett -
Your comment brings up some interesting questions, and I'd be happy to address them - sorry it's taken me so long to respond!
Firstly, it can actually be proven that fetuses do feel pain very early on. By 8 weeks, they have the sensory nerve, motor nerve, and thalamus (brain stem) necessary to feel pain. Fetal response to pain can be tested by the impulses that pain receptors send to the brain. By the end of the first trimester, almost the entire body is sentient to pain. (You can find this information in a bit more detail at abortionfacts.com) This, however, only addresses the question of physical pain, and you brought up emotional pain, which is definitely important to think about. I don't know whether we can tell if fetuses feel emotional pain, but I don't think that would actually make a difference in determining whether or not we can terminate them. Like you mentioned, an adult can become numb to feeling, but this lack of feeling would not justify taking that person's life. While there is disagreement on what constitutes people's identity, I think most would agree that that unfeeling person is still a person, and hence it would be morally reprehensible to take his life.
This brings us to the crux of the issue, because the value of the unfeeling person's life is not located in whether or not he can feel, but on the fact that he is a human being. Likewise, the crux of the abortion discussion is not located in the fact that fetuses feel pain, but that they are human. Though many arguments surround the issue of abortion, the abortion debate is essentially a question of ontology. The central pro-life argument is as follows: a human embryo comes from human parents, and therefore, by the law of Biogenesis (that all things reproduce after their own species), the embryo is human. As soon as a zygote is formed by the combination of sperm and egg (ie: at the moment of conception), it manifests all the qualities of a living thing: namely, growth, metabolism and reproduction of cells. The zygote has its own unique and complete human DNA, containing all the genetic materials necessary to grow into an adult. Therefore, from conception on, the zygote/embryo/fetus is its own complete, unique, human individual. For this reason, it is immoral to take its life.
Hopefully this discussion of ontology will help to clarify the question of potentiality, as well. Because a zygote is it's own genetic individual, distinct from the sperm and egg which merged to form it, it is in a different ontological category: it is complete, individual human, as opposed to a part of a human. A sperm or an egg, left to itself, is not on a continuum of growth that will eventually end as a grown adult; they are genetic materials that have potential to be made into a human by combination with the other necessary genetic material. To destroy a sperm or egg, or to use contraception, does not destroy a human being. A zygote, on the other hand, is a genetic human (not a potential human).
The argument for the humanness of the unborn cannot be contested on scientific grounds. However, many pro choice advocates would draw a distinction between "humanness" and "personhood." I believe that personhood is one and the same with humanness, and that it cannot be denied of any particular group of humans. In order to debunk the personhood of the unborn, one must argue on the basis of various traits manifested or not manifested by the unborn (rather than on the ontological make-up of their being). By measuring personhood in terms of traits, we introduce a spectrum of greater and lesser personhood, because any given trait is manifested at various degrees by various people. For instance, one may argue that the unborn are not persons because they do not reason or communicate linguistically. By this same reasoning, young babies and mentally handicapped are not persons, either. Furthermore, if those are the traits that determine personhood, the scholar who can reason and use language better than I can is more of a person than I am (this is the spectrum I mentioned). The danger of this kind of argument is clear: if we use it to deny the personhood of the unborn, we must also deny the personhood of various born people, if we are to be logically consistent. This trait-based understanding of personhood is the same mindset that has enabled the dehumanization of many people groups throughout history. The problem with abortion is that not only does it destroy innocent life, but it purports dangerous and wrong ideas about what it means to be a human person.
I hope that explanation helps - let me know if you have more questions!
Post a Comment