Monday, July 27, 2009

My Political Views: Part Two

In My Political Views: Part One, I discussed my position on same-sex marriage.

Today's topic is, in my opinion, even more controversial than same-sex marriage: Abortion.

While more controversial, I find this debate to be much more straight forward than most political issues. Some people bring womens' rights into the equation, but I just don't see how that has any effect on whether or not abortion should be legal. As you'll soon find out, I'm very much opposed to abortion, and hopefully I'll be able to provide sufficient reasoning for that.

While there are all kinds of arguments about abortion, including partial-birth abortion, birth control, and cases of rape and incest among others, there is one central issue: taking a human life. Is it the right thing to do to take a human life under certain circumstances? Let's take a look at some of these special cases a little closer:

Partial-birth abortion: This to me, is the most obviously wrong of all the different cases. I see no way to justify taking the life of a child that is completely developed and able to live outside the womb. The right to life doesn't begin when a parent decides it does, the right to life begins when life begins, and a partially-born child is clearly alive.

Birth Control: There are many forms of birth control, and while I don't know enough about the physiological workings of things like "the pill" and other contraceptives, I think that anything that prevents a pregnancy from happening is perfectly fine. Clearly the government shouldn't be banning condoms. The best way to avoid aborting a child you don't want to have is to never conceive in the first place.

This brings me to my main belief that forms my opinion on these issues: birth starts at conception. Anything preventing conception from happening is fair game, but as soon as that happens, a new life has been created, and that should not be taken lightly. This is where most of the debate (by reasonable people) takes place. Almost noone says, "Yes, it should be legal to kill a baby." Most proponents of abortion would say, "I do not believe that a life has been created at the point in a pregnancy where an abortion is taking place." I can understand that argument. If you believe that a new life has not been created until late in a pregnancy, then I can see how it would not be a morally repugnant thing to terminate that pregnancy in your mind. I do believe a life has been created though, which is why I feel so strongly about abortion of any kind being wrong.

Cases of rape and incest: This is a situation that gets brought up often by people that are pro-choice as a reason that abortion must remain legal. It is a good argument because it pulls at the heart strings of all who hear it, and it is serious enough that it demands a response from opponents. If a woman is raped, should she be allowed to terminate that pregnancy? She CLEARLY did not want this child, and there is absolutely nothing she could do to avoid it. It is a horrible situation, and one that noone would wish on their worst enemy. My response to such an argument would be, "Yes, this is a horrible thing that has happened, but that doesn't justify terminating a life." If someone murders your father or spouse, does that give you the right to retaliate by returning for vengeance? Legally, the answer is no (and I would argue morally as well). So how, then, does aborting a child that is the result of a crime cross the line into legality? The effects of both situations are incredibly difficult, and very personally damaging, but that does not mean that that the victim should retaliate (especially in the case of abortion, as the child is not the perpetrator).

Exception (and complication...)!: The only case I've heard thus far FOR abortion that I can agree with is when carrying a child puts the mother in an incredibly dangerous situation. If having a baby will kill you, the waters are muddied and decisions become incredibly difficult. There are definitely certain cases where I would find removing a child from the womb to be the right thing to do in order to save one life instead of losing two. I also understand that this is the issue that many people use as a loophole to justify any abortion they please. Yes, it may be mentally taxing and emotionally damaging to carry a child, but stress and stretch marks do not justify taking a life. Judging each situation on a case by case basis is a tall order; one that is difficult as it is expensive, and I don't think that's something I would be able to do.

So, to summarize: I find abortion wrong (and in most cases, morally reprehensible), and feel that it should be made illegal in all cases with the exception of situations where the mother is in grave physical danger. I know that this sounds cold-hearted, especially in our current culture of extreme tolerance and political correctness, but in this case, the government should be allowed to protect the rights of all human life.

Questions, comments, objections? Write a comment!


  1. My stance as a pro-choicer has nothing to do with the one argument that you presented that could come from our side--that being conception not being the start of life.

    Conception starts things off toward creating a new life. Except in the event that a miscarriage were to occur, conception IS the beginning of a new life.

    I simply believe in the choice. Until approx 24 weeks--which is when a fetus could feasibly be taken out of the womb and have a decent chance of surviving--a fetus is relying on the mother. If something is relying completely upon a person for life, then that person usually has some say over what happens.

    There is also the issue that if abortion were made illegal, it would still happen. All the time. It did back before Roe vs. Wade. It would again. Making it safe and, I'll go so far as to say 'less horrific' (think of coat hangers), makes sense.

    I do not advocate abortion. I would like it if it were only used under extreme conditions like the endangered health of the mother. But I have my way of thinking, and others have theirs, and a choice is necessary.

    I also think that sometimes a wrong choice (getting an abortion) needs to exist so that there can be a right choice. Even God put temptation in the Garden of Eden. Because if there are NO bad choices to be made in life..then one doesn't really make good just live in a world where only good exists.

    Maybe that last part only makes sense in my head.

  2. While I understand your argument, I suppose I just don't see the difference between ending the life of a fetus that is fully dependent on its mother and leaving a child to die outside the womb. (That statement makes it sound like I'm trying to sensationalize the issue, but I honestly feel they're very similar.)

    In the case of your last point, you're correct. God did put temptation into the garden of Eden, but he also forbid (made it illegal) for Adam and Eve to eat of the tree. Simply making something illegal doesn't remove all choice. Stealing a car is illegal, but someone can still choose to do that.

    I appreciate your point of view though, thanks for the response.

  3. The difference is that if a child outside the womb were left to die, someone else (family member, protective services, random good samaritan) could pick it up and care for it. If you can make it possible for a 0-24 week embreyo/fetus to be removed from a future mother who doesn't want the child, and still live...THEN killing a fetus and leaving a child on a curb would be the same thing.