Currently eight states have constitutional amendments on their ballots for November aimed at abortion rules. They want to move the restriction from 6-15 weeks to "fetal viability." Now, all the "pro" ads I've seen couch it in "abortion rights" and all "anti" ads I've seen couch it in "late-term abortions." I'm quite sure that neither is accurate.
Those who wish to use abortion as after-the-fact birth control ("Sure, I had sex, but I failed to do anything to prevent pregnancy, I'm not happy about it, and I refuse to be responsible for my choices.") want you to think of "reproductive rights." Those who want to defend human life want you to think of "when does life begin?". Mind you, according to federal law, a child in the womb is defined as a human being. Legally, the debate is over. But that's what this whole "constitutional amendment" thing is about. It is "life" if it is "viable," or it is "life" if it has a heartbeat. Fetal viability (the point at which a child can survive outside the womb) has been a debatable point as it is. The earliest birth that survived was at 21 weeks, but most speak in terms of 23-24 weeks. The thinking is "If it won't be viable outside my womb, I should be allowed to kill him/her if I want." Another confusion point is "except for the woman's health." All the amendments would say it's okay to abort at any time if there is a threat to the mother's health, but none of them define "a threat to the mother's health." A doctor could say, "Yes, there's a threat" even if there is none and it would be approved. A doctor could say, "It is a threat to her well-being" or "mental health" and it would be approved. But, hey, life is just not that precious, right?
A large portion of our society continues to embrace our sexular society where "What I want" generally defines "good" and sex, in particular, trumps everything else. (Except, of course, if we don't approve. But, what is on the "unapproved" list is changing and it shouldn't be long before what was wholly outrageous becomes wholly supported and encouraged.) So we continue this plunge down the moral toilet urging states like Florida and Arizona that planned to ban abortion to take the next step and legalize it for as far as they can push it. Whatever you do, don't consider human life of value. That would ruin the whole thing.
3 comments:
Stan, you wrote, “Fetal viability (the point at which a child can survive outside the womb) has been a debatable point as it is.” This issue would certainly need great clarification, because a fetus’s “viability” outside the womb is completely dependent upon human attendants using substitutionary means to replicate the womb. (Even a full-term, healthy baby could not survive on its own after birth but needs human care and attendance for several years [until it could feasibly maneuver itself to attain food and water] or it would die.) Realistically, then, true “fetal viability” (i.e. survivability on its own) is never an actual possibility, so that particular point strikes me as moot (as well as debatable, as you say). Therefore, the argument some women make that “I should be able to kill my baby if its survival depends upon me” (how backwards is that?!) would allow for both pre- and post-birth killings--and also exposes such a woman’s true mentality: “I will engage in this activity with no consideration of the potential outcome and no acceptance of the accompanying responsibility.” How immature at best and immoral at worst; such an attitude sure gives women a bad name [written tongue-in-cheek].
The fact that this is even a debate proves that this culture is doomed to judgment.
Stan,
As Lorna points out, fetal viability extends beyond the womb. Which is why people like Singer are pushing, academically, for some moral/ethical justification for "post birth abortion". That movement is still in it's infancy, but will likely gain traction using the argument Lorna mentions.
Your point about abortion as after the fact birth control is well taken. It's obviously possible to prevent pregnancy in multiple ways with a high degree of effectiveness, and well documented that the vast majority of abortions are for convenience.
If I had the option to vote for one of these bills, I would because any restriction on abortion is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately the debate has moved from "When does human life begin." to "When is person-hood" achieved.". As you point out, the first is a pretty simple and universally understood answer based in hard science, the second is intentionally vague and unanswered so as to justify as many abortions as possible.
Post a Comment