|
CuriousLord -> RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion (7/17/2007 7:12:26 AM)
|
The Abortion Argument, general:
Abortion, the act of destroying offspring in the mother's womb, is under a lot of controversy. The argument is often about mortality and ethics- is it right or not? The offspring's life or the mother's decision?
Why, one might consider, do we not simply kill orphans? Such kills would likely be benificial to society, rooting out those that would likely live a hard and service-consuming childhood when there are plenty of children in the world already. While a particular orphan might be the one to invent a cure to cancer, the same could be said for another child to be born to take his place, as the typical orphan is no more advantaged than the typical non-orphan. Perhaps, less so.
Why, then, do we care to try one for murder, should one do such a thing, if it would be practical? Two somewhat similar arguments seem to come into play. The first would be that, it would condone what might be considered murder to some (in the contemporary, most). Still, should murder be appended with "not applicable to orphans", this wouldn't be a problem. In the same way, many, a number of which are often associated with "pro-choice", would have "murder" appended "not applicatable to unborn". As this would be an argument of definitions for mental considers in the vague, this could be a valid argument to consider, though a messy one that few might be able to follow.
One may conclude this first argument with the notion that murder, common, is the act of ceasing the life functions of another developed human without the consent of state. It raises the question if the slaying of children is actually the same crime, and while this question has an answer, it is moot for the subjective consideration on abortion. Further, one comes to the understanding that the act of abortion may be similar to murder, proper, and thus may come with the same moral reasonings, though it is not exactly murder. Therefore, one might finally concludes that he must consider murder in earnest to establish the reasoning for it being a crime, then consider whether or not such reasonings apply to an unborn.
Murder, the act of slaying another, carries as previously mentioned, the fear of another being slayed. Therefore, those with a voice often speak against something that would be against their interests. As most living things carry a strong, if not utterly powerful, will to survive, even the chance of another slaying them often becomes and atrocity against their interests. In addition, one may often see himself in another- aspects of himself displayed in other life, moreso in other humans. In slaying one that another has empathy for, emotional concerns arise, doing damage to the empathizer. Further, logical points of consideration also arise in such an empathetic being. One such empathic being may well feel that his survival instinct has been infringed, seeing the target of his empathy as, to some extent or another, an extention of self in displaying such similar characteristics.
To this end, one comes to the second point of consideration. Not, "Is abortion murder?", but, rather, "Does abortion carry similar consquences as to the ones that cause murder to be abhorred?" One then may consider, "Do I have empathy for an unborn? How am I similar?" Such considerations are often answered with simplistic points of consideration, "Can it think? Does it have a somewhat developed body? Can it feel pain? Does its heart beat?" From here, one may make a judgement call of just how much this one empathizes with this being.
It seems that, often, one empathizes with an unborn. Exactly to what degree varies, though it's typically less than another adult human being and more than an animal one might eat. Abortion then becomes something ill-natured, though is it wrong enough to be illegal?
I'm afraid I must pick up from here later. Something compelled me to write at the expense of classtime, though missing a lab could prove to be a bit more painful than missing this lecture has been. The argument for legality is longer. For those who know and respect me, I will skim through it. For those who do not, you may feel free to consider it personally or/and to check up for a later continuation I hope to have time for.
Towards the end, one comes to ask, moreso in common, "Alright, abortion is bad. Though is it bad enough to warrent the oppurtunity expense of not enacting it?" This answer varies with empathy towards the mother- something females may tend to do more, though many males also empathize with females more strongly than other men- and empathy towards the unborn- which is more gender neutral. One need not empathize equally to conclude in favor of the unborn. It is the unborn's life versus some aspect of damage to the mother's life and other others that might be involved. Except in cases that such would kill the mother for certain, the mother would need to be considered significantly more valuable then the unborn to overcome the value of the unborn's life and the damage to the notion of the universal right to life.
In a possible follow up, I would like to address how the conclusion comes across for varying sections of the population. I would also hope to address the reason that many people tend become so polarized when, for many, it's not actually that clear of a decision.
|
|
|
|
