Life is sacred and that is non-negotiable.
I oppose any form of abortion for the sake of a woman’s convenience. If pregnancy is merely an inconvenience for a woman, she should not have the child at first place.
Libertarianism seems disturbing sometimes. It excessively emphasizes on self-possession, that one should always have control over oneself, no other can intervene. This mindset is where the far-left coming from. It’s toxic.
You know what, actually, a lot of things in our life are free. Free to execute, free to consume and free to dispose. Essentially, nobody can really stop you from doing anything to yourself. You are your own owner.
So even if abortion is prohibited, underground abortion can still happen. People with a will minds and people with a service to provide.
And here people may argue, since we can not really do anything to abortion, why don’t we just let go?
A lot of things in our life we don’t necessarily have complete control of. This is complete nihilism—“Since we can’t do any real thing about it so we won’t do anything about it.”
If there is not a single regulation on a human activity, then it would just roam free based entirely on human instincts: How poor you are you can’t have a child. How miserable you are you can’t have a child. How inconvenient you are you can’t have a child.
There are cases, there are always cases.
I am not an extremist. I don’t advocate full ban for abortion. But regulating abortion, or majorly restricting abortion, shows that we are a responsible society, we are grownups who would bear the consequences we mistakenly made.
Abortion is always about responsibility.
It’s not about choice. It’s a person’s responsibility to another life. It doesn’t even matter “How to determine whether the fetus is a life?” or “How to count whether the baby is a life?” It doesn’t freaking matter. There is no point in arguing that if the fetus inside you is just 3 weeks or 3 months then he or she should be legitimately abandoned/aborted.
That is just utterly disgusting as a human. And extremely irresponsible. Does it Fing matter? If you are counting time or schedule to determine whether a man is a man, you are apparently a coward, and one person who wants to escape from his or her responsibilities.
The mindset of far-leftists is that they think they own the child. This essentially contradicts to their own theory.
If one shall have possession of oneself, then how can you have possession over another human being? That is inside your uterus? What gives you the right to take over this human being’s personal rights?
And seriously don’t give me that he/she’s not a human being crap.
People who execute abortion seem to always think themselves first before the child. Because one is poor thus the child can not be born. Because one is incapable thus the child can not be born. Because one is inconvenient thus the child can not be born.
So, selfish, check. Irresponsible, check. No planning, check. Although I do understand your concerns that the child would definitely suffer in the coming years. Then I have a better question to ask, why do you have the child at first place? If you didn’t even plan for having a child, then why when you have a child, you decide to abort it?
What’s the cue?
It takes two parties to make a baby. Either side can be irresponsible and cause miseries for both of them.
Abortion is not just a misery for the woman, it can also be a distress for the man. In fact, women do weep after abortion. I can even testify that, as my mother aborted a child and she still cries every time she thinks of him.
So I really don’t know now.
Take a look at some rare cases, which usually would induce abortions.
Rape is a crime based solely on the defense of women, or at least it’s intended to be. Criminalizing rape was essentially a feminist movement in the early development of feminism.
Cut the politics.
Rapes do induce mental distress for female victims. And many of them don’t want the baby from an extremely dissatisfying incident.
So if the baby is conceived in the female victim’s womb, does she have a right to abort it? Or can she abort it?
The baby unbeknownst to the incident is innocent of what his/her father did. To kill the baby, is a symbol of revenge from the female victim.
But it doesn’t really make sense. This is still, yet, possession. The possession of another human being. The baby seems to be the perpetrator’s belonging, and the woman destroying the baby, either for revenge or disgust, is simply an act to try to destroy the criminal.
Ok, cut the psychology stuff. Let’s just say, this woman doesn’t want the baby, why don’t we just allow her to do that? She doesn’t want it, so leave her be.
Indeed, like I said, there is really no guaranteed way to ensure one does not perform abortion on her own.
Based on the life is all sacred premise, even a victim of rape should not abort her child. Because the child did nothing wrong but to emerge in the woman’s womb.
The chances of a woman getting pregnant from a condom break is rare. Nonetheless, she can still get pregnant.
Now we are talking about poor people who can’t afford a child or couples or parents who do not have a plan at all of having a child.
So what do you do in this situation?
Still bear the child. Doesn’t even matter.
However, in this case, unexpectedness, or accident, definitely trumps the planned parenthood.
In this case, you have no control of your life, thus yet again, you have no choice.
In this case, the only choice a person can obtain is seemingly, the choice to abort.
If we are left-leaning, and consider personal freedom a big thing, it does seem to be correct to give the person the freedom to execute her choice–her choice of not wanting a baby, for whatever the reasons.
However, if we give the unborn child personal freedom, then it looks like the woman is depriving the child’s personal freedom and rights.
Then in the end, the debate sort of skew to a rather stupid direction–when should we call a child a child? Is that a “thing”? Or, when does the child possess consciousness?
However, I think these are probably the stupidest questions of all time.
It doesn’t apply to normal couples, doesn’t it? Would a normal couple think their unborn baby a thing, just inside the mother’s womb, for a mere 2 weeks or 3 weeks? A mere thing?
Is that fair for those couples who cherish the miracle in their stomachs?
I believe, it is at the very moment that the couple decide to have a baby, the unborn child thus has consciousness, a right, a future right to be a human. A human with two legs, two arms, two hands and a well-developed face. Why is it you ask? It is because the humans give the consciousness to the baby. Even if it’s just a sperm meeting its egg.
The fertilized egg, the embryo, the fetus, the baby, they, are a whole. Just as a child to an adult. It is merely a progression of organic development.
We humans as a species, are a bunch of aspiring creatures that look up to the sky would dream, dream so big that one day we may ride with the stars, in that cavernous dark blue sky.
It is because we give hope to many things, one of the best wishes we give, is to our child. He/She is unborn, he/she is a child, he/she is a teenager, he/she is a young person, he/she is a middle-aged man, he/she is a old grandpa/grandma.
It is these beautiful scattered wishes we collect, we sort them out and give the best of them to our child, and he/she, not just the time in mother’s womb, but every stage of his/her life, he/she enjoys the best things we can provide in our life.
So, how is one person not a person in the earliest stage of his/her life? That makes no god damn sense! How is that deprived of humanity as if an old man has no rights to be a human at all, in which scenario, the society crumbles and falls.
It all comes from our very end of responsibilities.
Treat condom break as a coincidence and take the responsibility. Cherish the life, that’s it.
Bad Medical Conditions
In this case, mothers die from not aborting the child. The premise of all life is sacred and equal does not work anymore. Because if we protect the child, the mother dies. If we protect the mother, the child dies.
However, due to maternal brilliance and instincts, the mother usually keeps the child and leaves herself to heavenly eternity.
But, if we ask every single woman be a model of mothers. Aren’t we executing authoritarianism? Or some form of communism?
We can’t force everyone to be a good and kind person.
So, in this case, I guess for the sake of life is all sacred. And it depends on the father’s stance. If he thinks the child is more important, then don’t abort. If the mother is more important, then abort.
Somehow I find this the only possible scenario to justify abortion.
If abortion becomes a choice, and it’s free to use. It’ll definitely sabotage human morality.
However, if the premise is that life is sacred, that means all lives matter and are equal. It doesn’t matter if it’s a wicked person’s baby, or a good person’s baby, as long as that life is not punishable, the baby should have the right to live on. But, seldomly are any lives punishable, on a grand scale. No life is really deserved of the torment, agony and other punishments imposed upon them.
If we let abortion roam free, we lose the basic understanding of life.
People seem to always lack choices and options if they are not responsible and enterprising enough.
Abortion is most likely a sociological problem, which pertains to social rungs whichever one person stands on.
A poor person is much more likely to choose to abort the child if she is not able to afford child.
To middle class people, abortion is a sin, because when one has the resource to afford a child, simply removing them from your womb is sinful enough. Plus the traditional values.
To upper class people, it becomes a choice. They deem personal freedom more than anything. That is, a child not in need is an inconvenience. Thus, a child needs to be eliminated in any form, mostly by the means of abortion.
So, when it really becomes a choice is when you are upper-standing. Poor people usually don’t have choice but to abort their children, they either suffer from poverty after the child’s birth, or suffer less if aborted the child.
So, would it be any good to implement a system where it restricts abortion based on one person’s socioeconomic status?
Poor people get to abort children rather freely, however people with higher socioeconomic status are heavily restricted.
However, there’s a question about abortion. Should it be a choice?
To poor people, they don’t seem to have any choice. In this case, if life is all sacred, it doesn’t really apply to them.
No choice is also a choice. If you are implying the have equal ground for everyone, poor people shouldn’t receive this free pass of abortion either.
The other thought on this one is that some people argue that if one activity certainly can’t be fully eradicated then it shall be made legal. Like drugs, sex or any other morally questionable subjects.
There are, some, studies that can support the this tactic. For example, drugs. If a government makes it official that drug possession is no longer illegal, and treats drug addiction as a health problem rather than a crime, the society is better off than it was criminalized.
Take Portugal for example, they practiced this policy back in 2002. And it sort of worked.
I am not quite sure if this is applicable in other societies as well, but, definitely something worth looking into.
However, the argument about abortion is rather parallel.
The premise of pro-life is that life is sacred. But the premise of pro-choice is that choice matters.
They are not the exact opposition to each other. Roe is not saying life is not sacred. And Wade is not saying choice does not matter.
It seems like, the two premises could have some intersections. But how?
Because the premises, are, rather sub-statements of abortion. The argument is about whether to execute abortion. There is a direct contradiction. You either abort, or not. Thus the supporting premises may vary, but they can not escape the frame of abortion.
Apparently, now we have two sides that are both trying to reach moral high grounds. Because none of the direct oppositions of their premises are reasonably sound, or morally acceptable.
So ultimately, both sides sort of skew the definitions a little bit in order to draw in public attention.
We are basically competing the moral goodness of either option could bring. Is choice better? Or life better?
However, you know when there are two good moral ideas together, it’s bound to be messy and hard to match out whichever trumps the other.