Posts
I'd like to write out my musings on an extremely volatile subject tonight.
I have been been internally debating a question that has been externally debated for decades with no clear picture or answers and mostly rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Its one that as a male I absolutely cannot resolutely give an answer or guidance or really any substance to. That topic is abortion. As a male I will never physically have to decide on this issue nor will it ever affect me as much as it would a female faced with the predicament but I still feel that I can entertain the idea as a concept and argument with as much honestly as I possibly can.
Abortion, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, cannot so simply be broken down into 3 different political spectrum's, liberal, conservative and undecided. To do so is to relegate the act to basic human circumstances which it absolutely is not. It's not simply about woman's rights as much as human rights.
To start off with, you have those who subscribe to abortion legality under the premise of woman's rights. Now this concept is very clear cut to me as I am very firmly for human liberty above all else. A woman should have complete control over her body and the decisions that she makes and no government or state deserves the power to amend that. A strong foundation in human liberty is the framework for a liberating and truly free society.
But there-in lies the true issue. Yes, a woman absolutely should have full power over her body. But what about the baby? Does that baby not deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? As the power of liberty has been given to the woman, why would it be absent to an unborn baby?
Now there really is no question as to when life begins. As an athiest I can fully declare that the argument that life begins at birth is simply ridiculous and I don't feel like wasting a page to describe why. Those of religious leanings tend to agree that life begins with conception so that's fairly clean cut. To me, life begins at the immediate physical opportunity for life. The beginning at which, if uninterrupted, a baby will be born.
How can we possibly give one individual a right to life but then never grant it to another?
Woman's right at the cost of a baby's life and the baby's same right.
Now all that tends to lean towards the right to life side but it's also very important to recognize a woman's right. As stated above a woman's right to liberty should never be limited by a government.
The concept of liberty though should not be mistaken with the concept of anarchy. Anarchy, sure, can have liberty but liberty does not mean anarchy. The very idea of liberty also means that it protects the liberty rights of others. One such instance is murder, defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
One important argument for abortion is that is stops a child being born into a world where the mother cannot safely or intelligently care for the infant. Another important figure is that abortion has actually lead to reduced crimes because the number of children who would have otherwise been brought up by unloving and uncaring mothers in a delinquent environment has dropped thus their are less people born into an environment that tends to create criminals. The idea gets deeper though because it cannot be answered by the ending of human life otherwise one could argue that we should emplace strict population controls and that crime could be dealt with by mass murder. Obviously that is thankfully not an option although it historically has been attempted. So reduced crime is a benefit but is abortion the only option?
Is providing abortion alternatives part of a State's job? Under the 10th Amendment, a state could provide funds and a state constitutional interpretation to allow for intelligent allocation and implementation of abortion alternatives. And no, I do not mean business as usual with typical foster home dumps and an extremely hands off approach to alternatives as this has absolutely not worked in the past and has created significant troubles besides being extremely inhumane.
So you have two sides effectively. Woman's rights or Baby's rights. Only the one side can choose.
I will never fully appreciate the complexities or the emotional aspects of such a decision nor do I relish the opportunity but the preservation of human life and liberty are at the core of my being and I can at the least try to understand what I can. I will personally choose life always but I acknowledge that it is so much more deep than that or any simple answer.
I have been been internally debating a question that has been externally debated for decades with no clear picture or answers and mostly rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Its one that as a male I absolutely cannot resolutely give an answer or guidance or really any substance to. That topic is abortion. As a male I will never physically have to decide on this issue nor will it ever affect me as much as it would a female faced with the predicament but I still feel that I can entertain the idea as a concept and argument with as much honestly as I possibly can.
Abortion, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, cannot so simply be broken down into 3 different political spectrum's, liberal, conservative and undecided. To do so is to relegate the act to basic human circumstances which it absolutely is not. It's not simply about woman's rights as much as human rights.
To start off with, you have those who subscribe to abortion legality under the premise of woman's rights. Now this concept is very clear cut to me as I am very firmly for human liberty above all else. A woman should have complete control over her body and the decisions that she makes and no government or state deserves the power to amend that. A strong foundation in human liberty is the framework for a liberating and truly free society.
But there-in lies the true issue. Yes, a woman absolutely should have full power over her body. But what about the baby? Does that baby not deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? As the power of liberty has been given to the woman, why would it be absent to an unborn baby?
Now there really is no question as to when life begins. As an athiest I can fully declare that the argument that life begins at birth is simply ridiculous and I don't feel like wasting a page to describe why. Those of religious leanings tend to agree that life begins with conception so that's fairly clean cut. To me, life begins at the immediate physical opportunity for life. The beginning at which, if uninterrupted, a baby will be born.
How can we possibly give one individual a right to life but then never grant it to another?
Woman's right at the cost of a baby's life and the baby's same right.
Now all that tends to lean towards the right to life side but it's also very important to recognize a woman's right. As stated above a woman's right to liberty should never be limited by a government.
The concept of liberty though should not be mistaken with the concept of anarchy. Anarchy, sure, can have liberty but liberty does not mean anarchy. The very idea of liberty also means that it protects the liberty rights of others. One such instance is murder, defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
One important argument for abortion is that is stops a child being born into a world where the mother cannot safely or intelligently care for the infant. Another important figure is that abortion has actually lead to reduced crimes because the number of children who would have otherwise been brought up by unloving and uncaring mothers in a delinquent environment has dropped thus their are less people born into an environment that tends to create criminals. The idea gets deeper though because it cannot be answered by the ending of human life otherwise one could argue that we should emplace strict population controls and that crime could be dealt with by mass murder. Obviously that is thankfully not an option although it historically has been attempted. So reduced crime is a benefit but is abortion the only option?
Is providing abortion alternatives part of a State's job? Under the 10th Amendment, a state could provide funds and a state constitutional interpretation to allow for intelligent allocation and implementation of abortion alternatives. And no, I do not mean business as usual with typical foster home dumps and an extremely hands off approach to alternatives as this has absolutely not worked in the past and has created significant troubles besides being extremely inhumane.
So you have two sides effectively. Woman's rights or Baby's rights. Only the one side can choose.
I will never fully appreciate the complexities or the emotional aspects of such a decision nor do I relish the opportunity but the preservation of human life and liberty are at the core of my being and I can at the least try to understand what I can. I will personally choose life always but I acknowledge that it is so much more deep than that or any simple answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment