Chris at shrugger unceremoniously points to this Washington Times story in which a recent survey by the Center for the Advancement of Women shows that a majority of women have shifted to the pro-life stance with regard to abortion.
I have previously stated that this matter should be a Constitutional Amendment proposal so that the whole nation can once and for all vote on whether abortion should be illegal or not.
I have always been highly disenchanted with the idea of abortion being used as just another form of birth control. However, I also believe that there is a point where what exists is only a mass of insentient cells and that eradication of such cellular mass is not completely immoral. I just find it reprehesible for doctors, or even worse, untrained people in back alleys with coat hangers, to do a surgical procedure to extract it from a woman's womb. I am much more comfortable with a morning after pill. I am not female, and despite my having amassed a certain amount of general knowledge in almost every subject, I am still both amazed and befuddled about the female reproductive system.
I am very comfortable with abortion being used in rape, incest, health risk and fetal deformity situations. In all others, there should hardly ever be a real necessity to resort to abortion.
All sex is either consensual or it is rape. If it is consensual, in the majority of cases, the female is knowledgeable about pregnancy risks associated with non-use of contraceptives. I cannot see any excuse for unwanted pregnancies to a great degree, although I recognize that any contraceptive device, save abstinence, has some chance of failure. However, the number of abortions exceeds the statistical probabilities that all or even most abortions are due to contraceptive failure.
So, what is the deal? Do we have a large number of women who want to have a baby with a man, then after a month or so find out what kind of cad he really is, and change their minds? It all comes back to the same scenario: women do not adequately take charge of their bodies during the sex act. Of course, after the act, when they find they are pregnant, their claim is that it is their body. No one should be able to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own body. Spock would state that this was illogical: that because you chose to use your own body in an episode of unprotected sex, thereby risking pregnancy, you are wronged by being required to live with the consequences of your own choice.
Do I have the answers? No. Do I feel it is my place to tell others what moral choices to make in their lives? No. Does this dilemma make me have less respect for members of the human race? Yes.
Posted by Tiger at July 2, 2003 08:33 PM | TrackBack1) Irrespective of my own personal beliefs regarding the morality of the situation, I can understand how those of different moral standards may feel "oppressed" when those of us with stricter moral standards impose rules based on our morality upon them.
2) Despite this understanding, I also feel that it is somewhat important for society to have a unified level of general morality.
3) Unfortunately, I also realise the fact that if members of society feel that the unified morality is too strict, they will turn to means outside of society. See Prohibition for a good example of this.
4) Finally, there is often a bit of fuzziness in the area where consensual sex becomes rape. Most of this fuzziness comes from various chemical substances, usually alcohol. Regardless, this fuzziness causes some friction and necessitates drawing a line somewhere. At which point, number 3 is relevant again.
Like most things in this world, this issue can look black and white if you stand far enough back, however, if you look closely you will notice that there is enough grey to make it a troublesome topic.
Posted by: AstreaEdge at July 2, 2003 08:48 PMI can agree with you for the most part, with only a few minor differences. I have experienced the ugliness of abortion firsthand, after a nasty date rape. I made two promises to myself afterward:
1.) Unless there is a medically necessary reason, I would never, ever get another one, and
2.) If and when I found myself pregnant again, I would celebrate not only the life that I bring into the world, but celebrate for the sake of the one I did not.
11 years and 2 days after I made those promises, my son was born. And I have lived up to those promises, and will continue to do so to my last breath.
At the same time, I will defend a woman's right to have an abortion--with some restrictions. I do agree with you that a woman using abortion as birth control is not only irresponsible, she is a borderline killer. I also find the idea of late-term abortions sickening and immoral. Any doctor who performs abortions (that are not medically necessary) after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy should be prosecuted for murder and punished severely.
I also feel very strongly that every woman considering abortion should first be given a thorough explanation of the process, as well as a 24-hour waiting period for her to think about what she is about to do. Patients should be told exactly when they have reached the point at which there is no turning back in the procedure, and given time again to think about what they are going to do before continuing past that point. And there should be some form of medical database all clinics can link to, so if a woman habitually comes in for abortions--even to different clinics--she can be flagged as a repeat offender and recieve some form of punishment or counseling.
It's a case of the lesser of two evils. It's a shameful fact that abortions will happen--whether it's on an operating table with a vacuum extractor, or in a back alley with a coat hanger. I'll readily admit it's an ugly thing, and it took me longer to recover from having the abortion than the rape that brought it about. But it's still a woman's right.
--Denita a.k.a "TwoDragons"
Associate fire-tender at Who Tends the Fires