« Sex and Violence | HomePage | Corruption »

27/07/2005

The Moderate View of Abortion



I’m going to write this post today and I’ll comment on it, but then I’ll be through writing about this issue until the Senate Judicial Committee begins to question Roberts for the Supreme Court appointment.

The abortion issue may be the hottest of the hot button issues that we have in America today. Some people will avoid a group of people talking about the abortion issue no matter which side of the fence they are on, because they just don’t want people to know what they really feel about this issue. This is because most people in America today realize that abortion is not pretty, but they also don’t want the government telling women what they can and can’t do with their body.

As I wrote in a comment earlier this week is the main issue with abortion isn’t whether it should be legal, but when does a fetus become protected as a human being under the law. Extremists on the right contend that the moment of conception is that moment and therefore any abortion is murder. Extremists on the left contend that the moment of birth is that moment and abortion should not be illegal under any case. Most Americans have some feelings in the middle of these two extremes.

If we listen to what God tells the pregnant women through her thoughts and feelings we would find that a pregnant women generally becomes more attached to the fetus as it grows in the womb. This attachment is God’s way of having the woman bond with the child before it is even born. In this way giving the woman the choice to have an abortion determines when her bond with the child has exceeded that of a family pet. I say this, because only a cruel person could find it in her own heart the ability to kill the family pet. If a woman could find it in her heart the ability to terminate a pregnancy she has not bonded with the fetus yet and the status of the fetus must be less than that of the family pet. So, it only makes sense to leave this major decision to the woman who is pregnant.

One wise conservative blogger responded to this insight by saying that not all women will bond to the fetus in the same way. Some may never bond to the fetus. This certainly could be true, but if a woman does not have the ability to bond with the fetus what makes you think that government imposed pregnancy will make that woman bond with her child after birth? I would argue that if a woman realizes that she has no other option than to terminate the pregnancy and she is willing to do this she should be allowed to do it as soon as possible. In fact, women who know in advance that they don’t want to have children should obviously avoid getting pregnant. Therefore the first line of defense would be to avoid having sex. When this fails they should use contraception. If this fails they should consider having the child and giving it up for adoption. Obviously abortion should be the last resort in the line of defense against women who will resent their child and raise a sociopath. It is strange that a conservative that would suggest that a death row inmate could never reform and therefore should be put to death would expect that a woman who is forced into baring a child by the government would somehow be able to reform that resentment of her child. Either people can be reformed or they can’t, but it is certainly strange to take both sides of this issue.

I would like to conclude that most Americans actually couldn’t personally have an abortion because of personal beliefs or feelings. However, just because they can not personally find the need in themselves does not mean that they should not allow those in our society who have found themselves in the situation of being pregnant and they know in their heart that they could not provide the environment necessary to raise the child to have an abortion. Most people actually agree with this idea. The problem with this issue is the small group of extremists that have a warped ideology of reality. They should be put in the same category as the Islamic extremists who believe in their ideology to the point that they are willing to kill for it. This is why we have extremists who obstruct abortion clinics and blow them up.

Those are my thoughts on this subject; calling me a murderer or worse are certainly not going to change my mind.

, and

12:35 Posted in Culture , Politics , Religion | Permalink | Comments (12) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: religion

Trackbacks

The URL to Trackback this post is: http://drforbush.blogspirit.com/trackback/228050

Comments

I agree that the legal issue is seperate from the moral issue. Morally, most Americans join me in finding abortion disgusting and reprehensible in most situations. Fortunatly it usually only happens in emergency, necessary situations early in the pregnancy. But legally, I don't think it matters whether the fetus is protected as a human being under the law- do adults have the right to occupy a woman's uterus?

Posted by: Adam | 28/07/2005

Adam, perhaps a more apt question would be under what circumstances should a woman be able to remove an infant occupant of her fetus through dismemberment?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 28/07/2005

"If a woman could find it in her heart the ability to terminate a pregnancy she has not bonded with the fetus yet and the status of the fetus must be less than that of the family pet. So, it only makes sense to leave this major decision to the woman who is pregnant."

Non sequitor.

"Obviously abortion should be the last resort in the line of defense against women who will resent their child and raise a sociopath."

Well, wouldn't an even "laster" line be for the mother to kill the child as a 5 year-old? Should that be the last line of defense against raising a sociopath?

Reductio ad absurdum.

"However, just because they can not personally find the need in themselves does not mean that they should not allow those in our society who have found themselves in the situation of being pregnant and they know in their heart that they could not provide the environment necessary to raise the child to have an abortion"

Misdirection.

The question, as you had previously mentioned, is personhood. If the unborn child is a person, killing it is homocide. If not, then it is merely a form of post-conception birth control.

Or are you advocating homocide of unwanted children after birth, too?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 28/07/2005

An unborn child is not legally a person until it is born and aquires a name and Social Security ID number.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005

Forbush

"An unborn child is not legally a person until it is born and aquires a name and Social Security ID number."

How is that relevent to the discussion?

The current legal definition does not change whether an unborn child is or is not morally a person.

That'd be like saying "A slave is not a legal person" to defend slavery. It's circular logic!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 01/08/2005

Once again you miss the whole point of the discussion. As I have stated that the whole issue with abortion IS the argument of when the ball of cells acquires the status of being human. Extremists to the right believe that morally the first fertilized cell equals a human being. Obviously not all people agree with this or we would have different laws reflecting this extreme position. The laws do not give rights to the unborn fetus that supercede that of the mother, and this is the law that the extremists want to change.

My presentation here was a moderate view that says that obviously both extreme views are indeed extreme. Instead we should rely on the mother's love for her unborn child to dictate this demarcation. Extremists are not happy on either side here, which means that this is the moderate view.

When you make absurd statements like "A slave is not a legal person." or "Well, wouldn't an even "laster" line be for the mother to kill the child as a 5 year-old?" you are misdirecting the argument which you like to throw out when you don't have a more intelligent remark. Obviously we have solved the slavery issue and the 5-year-old issue with declaring them human from birth. And, with regard to the 5-year-old argument you should be careful because it was the right who was arguing that 12-years-olds should be tried as adults and executed. We’re getting kind of close on the line between execution and abortion here…

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005

correct me if i'm wrong, but everyone who has commented on this post is male?

as a female, i would say that abortion is necessary in some cases; i would say that having a child is a priviledge, and wanting to raise that child properly is a good decision. strengthening young women's knowledge/understanding of birth control and their own bodies helps to prevent the necessities of abortion -- making it illegal will only cause more problems. instead of having abortion be practised by licensed healthcare professionals in a clean setting, women will be forced to have the procedure carried out in secret.

as a female, i would also like to add that as men, none of you will ever have to face the real decision of whether or not to have an abortion -- you, in fact any man, have the option of leaving the woman and the unborn child at any time. so you can stand straight up with your moral stances without ever having to face a real decision -- you all seem to be lacking a little in the empathy department.

it's a difficult issue, morally challenging -- but if you really feel, as a person, that you do not agree with abortion, the best thing to do about it would be to join a sexual advocacy group that targets teens -- sexual education. the root problem lies here. advocating abstinance and "pro-life" stances are ideological, impractical, and not socially helpful or feasible.

Posted by: andrea | 01/08/2005

Andrea,

Thanks for your insight. I agree with you 100%. I come from the point of view of raising children. I also have had close relationships with women thinking about these questions and the possibility of needing an abortion. I agree that education on all aspects is very important. It is obviously not the only solution as people don't always learn what they are taught, but it is a step in the right direction. Making abortion illegal does not solve the problem, it only makes more problems.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/08/2005

Andrea,

None of us here is an unborn child, either, and they are even more affected by the decision. As a woman, you will not have to face the "real decision" of which way to flail as you are hacked to pieces.

You seem to be lacking a little in the empathy department.

There may be many "root causes" for being sliced into pieces. But there's also a proximate one: a butcher is doing the slicing.

Because he (it's almost always a "he") is doing the job because he's paid to, not because he compulsively likes killing things, criminalizing the behavior will reduce its occurance. Punishment can't be the only solution, but it's part of one.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 01/08/2005

Then again Andrea, Dan recommends that pedophiles should be given children of parents who are not vocally against pedophilia in order to quench their thirst for children. This moral relativism seems to contradict his abortion views, but it hard to figure from the non-sense that he writes...

Make sure that you check out warped views at his blog.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 02/08/2005

Andrea- Dan's right that just because we're not women doesn't mean we're not allowed to speak out on a topic. I hope that you'd speak out on men's issues too. But you are right that the solution is to assist sexual advocacy groups. I've donated to Scarleteen myself

Posted by: Adam | 02/08/2005

Forbush,

What part of "It was what I would call a "scratch solution" - I wanted to see where my knowledge and thinking would take me. I purposefully didn't clearly write the conclusion because I did not want a reader to think that I "believe" my conclusion." didn't you understand?

Or did the fact it is titled "Pedophiles as The Enemy" and one of my comments included advocating the death penalty for some predators confuse you?

You replied after I wrote that, so (because I know you carefully consider what you are reading before replying to it) I know you read it.

Or do your mysteriously uncited "published" works use innuendo and deception to win debates, too?

I noted you didn't a URL to the referenced post -- do you think Andrew is too stupid to make up her own mind?

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/31/pedophiles-as-the-enemy.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 02/08/2005