Post by Jason on Dec 19, 2007 16:36:20 GMT -4
Alright, since the subject came up on another thread it deserves its own. I kept it in "Beyond Belief" since it seems likely the discussion will involve religion at some point, and "Beyond Belief" is the de facto section of the forum for religious discussions.
My own position, in brief, is that abortion can only be morally justified under a few fairly specific conditions. These include:
1. If the pregnancy was the result of a rape.
2. If the pregnancy was the result of incest (typically involving a minor).
3. If allowing the pregnancy to continue will result in the death of or permanent injury to the mother.
4. In the case of extreme birth defects, although I'm somewhat undecided as to what constitutes "extreme".
Even when one of these conditions is present, I feel the decision to terminate a pregnancy should never be automatic, or casual. The mother should consult with the father and her own family members as well as a doctor and/or psychological professional. If the mother or father is religious the decision should certainly be a subject of personal prayer and religious counseling is also appropriate.
If at all possible I feel the mother should have the consent of the father - the decision should be unanimous between them (in some of the conditions listed above this is not an issue).
If the mother is a minor or mentally incompetent she should have parental consent or consent of her legal guardian.
The reasoning behind these strictures is that you are deciding the fate of a human being here. We can split hairs as to when exactly a fetus becomes a human being, but an abortion always means there will be one less person around, whatever the state of that person actually was (potential human being or otherwise) when the abortion was carried out. Basic respect for human life, especially innocent human life, requires that you have very good justification to end it. "I didn't want to face the consequences of my actions" is not adequate.
Responsibility for one's actions plays a role here. Notice that the top two conditions I consider justifications for abortion are conditions where the mother didn't have any choice as to whether she could become pregnant.
Any adult should (notice I use the word "should") realize that you can take steps to limit the possibility of becoming pregnant, but that birth control can fail and sometimes does. Ignorance of this fact, or failure to act responsibly by using birth control in the first place is not in my opinion sufficient justification to take a human life.
Frankly, if your circumstances are such that you cannot take responsibility for a possible child then I feel you should not be having sex at all - whether your are male or female. Once you make the decision to act in a way that may result in a pregnancy for you or your partner you must live with the consequences if a pregnancy occurs, whether the mother chooses to carry the baby to term or not. Sex is emotionally complex and has consequences, even when it doesn't result in a pregnancy. Trying to dismiss the most obvious consequences through an abortion doesn't mean you get away scott free - rather it introduces it's own complications, some of them potentially more devastating to the would-be mother and father than responsibility for a child would be.
If you are unable to care for a child then adoption is an excellent option. My brother and sister-in-law have adopted, and they couldn't be happier with my nephew. He has parents who love him and have the means to care for him. It's a true win-win situation for adoptive parents and child.
With regard to birth defects, quality of life arguments are a thorny issue. I had a great uncle who was mentally retarded from birth, and he spent most of his life in various care facilities. From my point of view he didn't have a very high quality of life. But he didn't seem to be unhappy, often he was happy, and unselfishly caring for him often brought out the best in his brothers and sisters - including my grandfather. His life had a great impact on his family for good. Good with a bittersweet taste to it, perhaps, but good that we would not have experienced if he had never been born.
Finally, what is morally justified and what should be legal may be two different issues. I've outlined what I feel is moral, but there may be many possible legal approaches to this moral position.
For example I see no reason to fine or imprison mothers who underwent an abortion. If the practice is made illegal then regulating the doctors, not the mothers, seems the obvious approach.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned in the near future it will not mean that all abortions in the U.S. suddenly become illegal - it will instead return to the individual states the right to work out their own laws and standards for it. Some would doubtless keep it just as legal and accessible as it is now (New York I'm looking in your direction). Others might adopt some of the same conditions I have outlined. Probably very few if any would completely outlaw abortion under all circumstances. In any case it would be once again up to individual communities and their elected officials to decide what is acceptable, rather than judges with life time appointments. A judicial overreach would have been corrected.
Gentlemen and ladies, start your flamethrowers!
My own position, in brief, is that abortion can only be morally justified under a few fairly specific conditions. These include:
1. If the pregnancy was the result of a rape.
2. If the pregnancy was the result of incest (typically involving a minor).
3. If allowing the pregnancy to continue will result in the death of or permanent injury to the mother.
4. In the case of extreme birth defects, although I'm somewhat undecided as to what constitutes "extreme".
Even when one of these conditions is present, I feel the decision to terminate a pregnancy should never be automatic, or casual. The mother should consult with the father and her own family members as well as a doctor and/or psychological professional. If the mother or father is religious the decision should certainly be a subject of personal prayer and religious counseling is also appropriate.
If at all possible I feel the mother should have the consent of the father - the decision should be unanimous between them (in some of the conditions listed above this is not an issue).
If the mother is a minor or mentally incompetent she should have parental consent or consent of her legal guardian.
The reasoning behind these strictures is that you are deciding the fate of a human being here. We can split hairs as to when exactly a fetus becomes a human being, but an abortion always means there will be one less person around, whatever the state of that person actually was (potential human being or otherwise) when the abortion was carried out. Basic respect for human life, especially innocent human life, requires that you have very good justification to end it. "I didn't want to face the consequences of my actions" is not adequate.
Responsibility for one's actions plays a role here. Notice that the top two conditions I consider justifications for abortion are conditions where the mother didn't have any choice as to whether she could become pregnant.
Any adult should (notice I use the word "should") realize that you can take steps to limit the possibility of becoming pregnant, but that birth control can fail and sometimes does. Ignorance of this fact, or failure to act responsibly by using birth control in the first place is not in my opinion sufficient justification to take a human life.
Frankly, if your circumstances are such that you cannot take responsibility for a possible child then I feel you should not be having sex at all - whether your are male or female. Once you make the decision to act in a way that may result in a pregnancy for you or your partner you must live with the consequences if a pregnancy occurs, whether the mother chooses to carry the baby to term or not. Sex is emotionally complex and has consequences, even when it doesn't result in a pregnancy. Trying to dismiss the most obvious consequences through an abortion doesn't mean you get away scott free - rather it introduces it's own complications, some of them potentially more devastating to the would-be mother and father than responsibility for a child would be.
If you are unable to care for a child then adoption is an excellent option. My brother and sister-in-law have adopted, and they couldn't be happier with my nephew. He has parents who love him and have the means to care for him. It's a true win-win situation for adoptive parents and child.
With regard to birth defects, quality of life arguments are a thorny issue. I had a great uncle who was mentally retarded from birth, and he spent most of his life in various care facilities. From my point of view he didn't have a very high quality of life. But he didn't seem to be unhappy, often he was happy, and unselfishly caring for him often brought out the best in his brothers and sisters - including my grandfather. His life had a great impact on his family for good. Good with a bittersweet taste to it, perhaps, but good that we would not have experienced if he had never been born.
Finally, what is morally justified and what should be legal may be two different issues. I've outlined what I feel is moral, but there may be many possible legal approaches to this moral position.
For example I see no reason to fine or imprison mothers who underwent an abortion. If the practice is made illegal then regulating the doctors, not the mothers, seems the obvious approach.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned in the near future it will not mean that all abortions in the U.S. suddenly become illegal - it will instead return to the individual states the right to work out their own laws and standards for it. Some would doubtless keep it just as legal and accessible as it is now (New York I'm looking in your direction). Others might adopt some of the same conditions I have outlined. Probably very few if any would completely outlaw abortion under all circumstances. In any case it would be once again up to individual communities and their elected officials to decide what is acceptable, rather than judges with life time appointments. A judicial overreach would have been corrected.
Gentlemen and ladies, start your flamethrowers!