Re: abortion clarification
Originally Posted by HoreTore
HoreTore, I think perhaps your terminology is confusing your thinking on this.
There is absolutely no doubt that a foetus is alive. The debate is rather at which point does it become a viable human being, with the rights pertaining to that status. Those who are pro-life tend to argue that the rights of a human being should be due at the moment of conception, and are unalienable at that point. Pro-choice tend to argue that those rights either do not come into being until late in the pregnancy (viability) or are over-ridden by the rights of the adult female until viability. Neither stance denies that the foetus is alive right from conception.
The big point of contention in the US (as I understand it, and await correction if in error) is that a legal ruling that permitted abortion allows very late terminations. As Don noted, there are quite a few third semester abortions over there because of this. In Europe, there is often a strict upper limit (usually around 24-26 weeks) and this is based on current scientific analyses of viability - ie a foetus of 22 weeks is very unlikely to survive outside the womb whatever the interventions. As our medicine gets better, this limit is supposed to reduce.
The pro-life stance is, in many ways, much more ethically based and consistent than this sliding scale approach - though it lacks practicality - as has been said, miscarriages happen and back-street options will be sought if no legal recourse is available. To answer Xdeathfire's question, if a person believes that the foetus is a child immediately on conception, the thought of killing that child in cold blood would be as abhorrent as hacking a four-year old to death for being inconvenient. Their anger and torment is entirely understandable, and certainly they deserve respect for the passion of their beliefs. Miscarriages are accidents, as are car crashes, and victims should be mourned. Abortions are clearly murder in this way of thinking.
I fear that in the United States, the positions are so polarised that the original court case cannot be amended (or rather, a new law passed) to make late term abortion illegal and replicate the European sliding scale. No politician of either side is willing to offend either the radical pro-choice groups that refuse to accept any limits now they have no limits - and the pro-life groups cannot accept that any abortion is permissible because it would repudiate their beliefs. The politicians would rather the Supreme Court made the decision - a decision that by definition (since SCOTUS does not legislate but interpret) will be an all or nothing situation.
For the record, I am pro-choice out of pragmatism, but in Don's 1980's mould. The decision has to rest with the mother, and her rights outweigh those of the foetus (though I would prefer the limit to be in the order of 12 weeks) but there should be many, many more options available (it is a crying shame that we have so many couples using artificial means to procreate, or in desperation from trying to adopt, yet millions of foetuses are aborted). There should be much, much greater education and support available for mothers so that they truly have a choice.
It saddens me for example, that many pro-life campaigners are also people who condemn single mothers - I would have thought that the brave decision to keep a baby, even in the absence of its father, would be applauded and supported. I imagine many babies are aborted because the stigma of single motherhood is so great, which is also a deep shame for those of us who would like to see choice mean that most accidental pregnancies resulted in a happy child in a loving home.
OK, that went on a little longer than I planned. Should have aborted it around the third paragraph, methinks, bit now it's just too grown up.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks