Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 3

Here I continue my discussion with Shan. His comments in normal text. Mine in italics. I also sent these remarks to Shan via email. Mine have been edited here for spelling, othe than that, they are unchanged from what he recieved.

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen.

I agree with ypour contention that current societal trends play a prominent part in unwanted pregnancies. This is a reflection of the culture’s denial of the purpose of human sexuality. When one engages in the sex act, one does so in the full realization that the natural purpose of the act is procreation regardless of their intent. While there may be such a thing as an unwanted pregancy, there is no such thing as an accidental pregancy.

If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

That’s true. I’ll grant you that laws against armed robbery haven’t eliminated armed robbery. Rape still exists in spite of leagl strictures against it. The same goes for a myriad of other crimes. The important thing is that laws against violations of persons or their property make it known that society values persons and property.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil. If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

I agree that abortions, when rendered illegal, will continue to be performed by criminals. I think the coat hanger bit is a trifle extreme.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?

My preference is for a solution whereby the lives of both the mother and the child are respected.

Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

Perhaps the time to “choose” I prior to the moment of conception. Maybe, just maybe, deciding to abrogate our responsibility in the name of “freedom” isn’t the issue.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Here is where the crux of our disagreement lies, I think. By consenting to this discussion you admit that abortion is an evil, yet you deny it’s murder. You seem to admit, although in a roundabout way, that the fetus is a person, but that it’s right to life is trumped by the right of the mother to “choose”. As an individual I have no right to take the life of a person who thwarts my plans. I have no right to kill a thirty year old who is inconvenient to me, nor a ten year old, nor an infant. Yet at each of these ages, the human is distinctly different from what it is becoming; its chronological age is an artificial construct, a convenience imposed by us. What makes a child a different thing the day before its birth than it is the day after its birth? Certainly, a newborn is not wholly viable. A newborn requires much attention and support to survive. Should we consider legalizing infanticide on this account? Should the convenience of the mother trump the rights of a newborn? At what age do we draw the line? Two days? Two weeks? Two years? How is a child different at one year, 364 days, than at two years? Tell me the point at which rights inhere in the person and make a case for that point rather than any other.

Til next time, all the best. Joe