Abortion is one of the most emotionally charged issues in the public sphere. As an individual who has only recently begun to form his political views, I found the topic to be somewhat interesting; however, the debate was going on and I was curious to the arguments being presented by both sides.
There are many different perspectives which I saw; however, I believe that abortion should not be granted under normal circumstances. I will not discuss special cases such as rape or incest or others as those, I believe, are somewhat irrelevant to the discussion regarding open access to abortion. I will attempt to address some of the most common arguments for abortion and why I find the reasoning behind these arguments to be fallacious and wrong.
One argument that I often see is the "law-of-the-land" argument. In essence, this argument is that since abortion is the law, it must be reflective of morality and individuals should not challenge, and instead abide, by the law. The error present in this argument is immediately recognizable to any individual who has read texts regarding classical liberalism.
The main thing that this argument does not address is morality. What about morality? Just because something is a law, does that mean any law, regardless of how wicked it may be, must ultimately be abided to. Slavery was once the law, beating ones wife was one the law, even the right to not have an abortion was the law before Roe. V. Wade. Laws are constantly changing and adapting to the times and it moral values that must be upheld so that fair and just laws can be made.
Another argument is that the parents simply are not ready for a child and that them not being ready for the child is ultimately to the child's detriment. Many individuals reason that society, as a whole, would be better if unattended children were simply not allowed to exist in social-economic circumstances which would make these children into the dissidents and criminals of society. I want to pose the read a hypothetical question. What is the worst thing that happens when that child is born? What would have been so bad that it merits the ending of somethings life? As columnist for The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro says, "it's so vile to deny the humanity of something just because it is convenient to you." You simply cannot run away from your problems indefinitely.
Sure, an individual may grow up poor but is having the right to grow up more important than simply growing up well. Just because present financial conditions to not encourage an exceptional life for the child mean that it has not right to life at all. Also, one should also consider that although more criminals may arise from abortions not being conducted, so will other minds which could provide strides in medication, finance, law, and science.
Also, areas which are already poor also have the highest rate of abortions and there is no major economic boon or reduction in crime within these areas before or after Roe. V. Wade. Areas that were poor remained poor regardless of the number of children being born and so a better suppressant to the ills of poverty is needed then abortion. One thing that should also be considered is what the potential of these children is. Is it not wrong to take away something from society which could ultimately go on to improve its condition?
The argument that I find to be the most disgusting is that the fetus is simply not a human. My main question to an individual to have this response is who are you to decide what is and isn't a human being? What authority over me, or for that matter anyone else, do you have to decide what is and isn't a human? Some might rebut my stating when the brain development, or when heart development occurs; however, is an individual who is a "vegetable" or lacks the capacity to use their brain also meaningless and can be killed whenever we feel like it.
The seed to human cruelty can perhaps be describes as taking a personal stance on the worth of human life. As soon as you deem something unworthy of life or someone as not being human then you have given yourself unlimited authority over it. You can do anything you want and we know what happens when such ideas become mainstream.
An extension of this argument is that society is the thing that decides the fetus's worth. Since society has deemed the fetus to not have worth, it must not have any worth. This also fails to consider the idea that societies can be corrupt. Societies, empowered by groupthink, can hold views that are ultimately immoral and persecution and injustice can continue within these societies if the ideas they hold to high regards are not challenged.
Also, as radio talk show host Dennis Prager states "On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus's worth?" He goes on to point out how if a mother wants her baby, and then the baby is killed by an outside agent, society treats such a death as a homicide. In contrast, if a mother does not want her baby, and then the baby is killed by an outside agent, society assumes it had no rights and thus the action was justified. Does the fetus have rights or not? The mother simply cannot make this decision since this varies from mother to mother and assuming a consistent standard of morality, no moral judgement can simply be made.
Another response would be that well, what about prosecution? If killing a fetus is a crime then should the mother also not be prosecuted? The reason why such an argument is proper up is to make the issue about women vs. anti-abortion individuals rather than the universal moral issue that it is. The first reason we don't do this is because, it simply more efficient economically to go after the doctors then the individuals themselves. It's similar to anti-drug policy where we go after the dealer and not the users to make most of limited economic resources.
The second reason is that women are often pressured to make this decision and they are unclear regarding the morality of their actions. Women can be pressured by doctors, my family members, and now increasingly society to make this decision by showing to them only what is to be gained from the abortion and not telling her what is to be lost. An agent who is unclear regarding the morality of the issue, or what can be lost in terms of the future human achievements of a fetus, ultimately is unable to make the appropriate decision because not enough information is presented to her. Doctors, on the other hand, know more about this and thus they made an immoral decision when presented with all the facts. This is the key difference of why doctors are punished but women are not.
What frightens me the most about this entire abortion debate is how we have reached a point within society where we fail to acknowledge what is and isn't a human. Our media even celebrates individuals who undergo an abortion. If history has taught us anything is that some of the most cruel and obscene behavior ever done by humans to other humans has been often preceded by a group of individuals being deemed not human or less that human. Not only does the society act in a cruel manner towards the group deemed not human, but the society itself falls into degeneracy and immorality since it believes what it is doing is a good thing.
The seeds of this idea have been planted and using history as a guide, I believe that these ideas will be applied to more and more groups and actions against these groups will grow. Morality is such a fascinating concept; however, once we have failed to be moral, there is no going back and no guide as to how far our actions will slide down.
There are many different perspectives which I saw; however, I believe that abortion should not be granted under normal circumstances. I will not discuss special cases such as rape or incest or others as those, I believe, are somewhat irrelevant to the discussion regarding open access to abortion. I will attempt to address some of the most common arguments for abortion and why I find the reasoning behind these arguments to be fallacious and wrong.
One argument that I often see is the "law-of-the-land" argument. In essence, this argument is that since abortion is the law, it must be reflective of morality and individuals should not challenge, and instead abide, by the law. The error present in this argument is immediately recognizable to any individual who has read texts regarding classical liberalism.
The main thing that this argument does not address is morality. What about morality? Just because something is a law, does that mean any law, regardless of how wicked it may be, must ultimately be abided to. Slavery was once the law, beating ones wife was one the law, even the right to not have an abortion was the law before Roe. V. Wade. Laws are constantly changing and adapting to the times and it moral values that must be upheld so that fair and just laws can be made.
Another argument is that the parents simply are not ready for a child and that them not being ready for the child is ultimately to the child's detriment. Many individuals reason that society, as a whole, would be better if unattended children were simply not allowed to exist in social-economic circumstances which would make these children into the dissidents and criminals of society. I want to pose the read a hypothetical question. What is the worst thing that happens when that child is born? What would have been so bad that it merits the ending of somethings life? As columnist for The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro says, "it's so vile to deny the humanity of something just because it is convenient to you." You simply cannot run away from your problems indefinitely.
Sure, an individual may grow up poor but is having the right to grow up more important than simply growing up well. Just because present financial conditions to not encourage an exceptional life for the child mean that it has not right to life at all. Also, one should also consider that although more criminals may arise from abortions not being conducted, so will other minds which could provide strides in medication, finance, law, and science.
Also, areas which are already poor also have the highest rate of abortions and there is no major economic boon or reduction in crime within these areas before or after Roe. V. Wade. Areas that were poor remained poor regardless of the number of children being born and so a better suppressant to the ills of poverty is needed then abortion. One thing that should also be considered is what the potential of these children is. Is it not wrong to take away something from society which could ultimately go on to improve its condition?
The argument that I find to be the most disgusting is that the fetus is simply not a human. My main question to an individual to have this response is who are you to decide what is and isn't a human being? What authority over me, or for that matter anyone else, do you have to decide what is and isn't a human? Some might rebut my stating when the brain development, or when heart development occurs; however, is an individual who is a "vegetable" or lacks the capacity to use their brain also meaningless and can be killed whenever we feel like it.
The seed to human cruelty can perhaps be describes as taking a personal stance on the worth of human life. As soon as you deem something unworthy of life or someone as not being human then you have given yourself unlimited authority over it. You can do anything you want and we know what happens when such ideas become mainstream.
An extension of this argument is that society is the thing that decides the fetus's worth. Since society has deemed the fetus to not have worth, it must not have any worth. This also fails to consider the idea that societies can be corrupt. Societies, empowered by groupthink, can hold views that are ultimately immoral and persecution and injustice can continue within these societies if the ideas they hold to high regards are not challenged.
Also, as radio talk show host Dennis Prager states "On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus's worth?" He goes on to point out how if a mother wants her baby, and then the baby is killed by an outside agent, society treats such a death as a homicide. In contrast, if a mother does not want her baby, and then the baby is killed by an outside agent, society assumes it had no rights and thus the action was justified. Does the fetus have rights or not? The mother simply cannot make this decision since this varies from mother to mother and assuming a consistent standard of morality, no moral judgement can simply be made.
Another response would be that well, what about prosecution? If killing a fetus is a crime then should the mother also not be prosecuted? The reason why such an argument is proper up is to make the issue about women vs. anti-abortion individuals rather than the universal moral issue that it is. The first reason we don't do this is because, it simply more efficient economically to go after the doctors then the individuals themselves. It's similar to anti-drug policy where we go after the dealer and not the users to make most of limited economic resources.
The second reason is that women are often pressured to make this decision and they are unclear regarding the morality of their actions. Women can be pressured by doctors, my family members, and now increasingly society to make this decision by showing to them only what is to be gained from the abortion and not telling her what is to be lost. An agent who is unclear regarding the morality of the issue, or what can be lost in terms of the future human achievements of a fetus, ultimately is unable to make the appropriate decision because not enough information is presented to her. Doctors, on the other hand, know more about this and thus they made an immoral decision when presented with all the facts. This is the key difference of why doctors are punished but women are not.
What frightens me the most about this entire abortion debate is how we have reached a point within society where we fail to acknowledge what is and isn't a human. Our media even celebrates individuals who undergo an abortion. If history has taught us anything is that some of the most cruel and obscene behavior ever done by humans to other humans has been often preceded by a group of individuals being deemed not human or less that human. Not only does the society act in a cruel manner towards the group deemed not human, but the society itself falls into degeneracy and immorality since it believes what it is doing is a good thing.
The seeds of this idea have been planted and using history as a guide, I believe that these ideas will be applied to more and more groups and actions against these groups will grow. Morality is such a fascinating concept; however, once we have failed to be moral, there is no going back and no guide as to how far our actions will slide down.
