"Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...." -Dennis Miller
Here is my Rant and Roar page. My rants vary in length depending on how I feel and how much I have to say about each issue. Once again, I'd like to point out that I am not trying to offend anyone in particular. This is just me blowing off some steam.
I thought it was time for a juicy topic, so here it is: my take on abortion. Let me state my position right off the bat so as not to confuse anyone. I am not pro-abortion, but I am very much pro-choice. Abortion is always regrettable and should really only be used in certain cases. It should also never be used simply as a method of birth control. A fetus does have rights, which I believe should always be respected. Abortion also allows people to "fine tune" their child ("Can I have one in blond?") which is obviously morally wrong. Despite these beliefs, I think that outlawing abortion would be even worse. A fetus can lead to its own death and the death of the mother (ex: if the fetus gets stuck in the fallopian tube). If a woman is raped, it is unfair to ask her to carry the rapist's child for nine month and for her to put her life in danger to bring a child into the world that isn't wanted. Also, the genes of this rapist will be able to spread. Outlawing abortion won't stop women who are intent on having an abortion. They will simply resort to much more illegal, damaging and life threatening treatments. It is for these reasons that abortion is legal. This would probably be a good time to stress the difference between morality and legality. Just because it's legal for all women to have abortions, it doesn't always make it morally right. The law is general and applies to all people because it has to. Abortions are legal because they are better than the alternative. To be able to make a moral decision, you need to look at each situation on its own. The morality of abortion has to be judged on a case by case basis. Exceptions are as much a part of ethics as rules are. If the situation is morally ambiguous, then it should be up to the woman to decide what happens. It is her body and her life. Now, I want to go through some of the arguments which are used by pro-lifers against abortion and show you why I support the right of abortion despite these arguments.
"A fetus is a person like you and me"
This is a statement which will require quite a bit of analysis. It deals with the fundamental question of abortion: Is a fetus a human life? My answer is both yes and no. I will explain what I mean, but first, let's get back to the original statement and my views on it. I disagree with it. I'm sorry, but a fetus is NOT a person. That's why we call it a "fetus" and not a "person". A fetus is, however, a potential person. Let me say that again... a fetus is a POTENTIAL person. A person and a potential person are not the same thing. It is true that a fetus COULD become a person, but that does not automatically make it a person. An egg is not a chicken and a seed is not a tree. Obviously, this raises the question of rights. If I don't believe fetuses are people, does that mean they don't have rights? No. I do believe that a fetus DOES have some rights. When a fetus becomes viable, then it has a right to be born. It is at a point when the mother should have decided whether she wanted the child or not. There are obvious exceptions to this, but I am speaking generally.
"Abortion is wrong because God says so"
I've heard and read all kinds of arguments against abortion. Some arguments are extremely convincing, while others are just plain insane. The most absurd argument I've ever heard can be read in a debate found in the My Opinion section of the www.femalenerd.com website. Now, while I don't want to attack anyone's belief and while I would never use only the most absurd arguments of a position to argue against, this is one argument that I just have to bring up. Someone actually wrote the following:
"Just what is this "Right To Choose?" garbage? No offense, some of my best pals are "Pro-Abortion Rights" But there is NO SUCH THING as the "Freedom to Choose" It's not in the Bill of Rights, or in the Constitution of any countries as far as I know. Think about it, if the "Freedom to Choose" really existed, rape would have to be legal-people CHOOSE to commit rape! I could park my car in the middle of the freeway and cause a traffic jam-because I CHOOSE to park my car there. See how ridiculous it is?"
Now, the ridiculousness of this statement is quite staggering. If you ACTUALLY need me to explain the insanity of the statement above, then please e-mail me. I will gladly explain it to you. Sorry, I went a little off topic there. As I was saying, there are all kinds of arguments against abortion, but I find that the majority of them tend to be religious in nature. One such religious argument can be found in the same debate mentioned above and which I find many religious pro-lifers tend to agree with:
"One question... can you (or any woman, man) create a life? Can you breathe the breath of life into something, anything, and make it live? No? Hmmm... Then lets assume that there must be some being greater than man that gives life. Then what makes you think that you (not necessarily you, just any woman or man) has the right to take away something that only said God can give? Don't you think that he would be terribly displeased for you to destroy what He has created and set in order from the foundation of mankind? The life of a child that this omnipotent being knew about before the world began?"
The statement above claims that only God can create life, so we shouldn't destroy it. I find it to be a flawed argument for a few reasons. First, why CAN'T any woman or man create life? The fetus is born in the uterus of a woman. It is a result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It sounds to me like it IS a creation of both man AND woman. Second, if we CAN'T create life, then what makes you think we can destroy it? If only God can give life, then it's safe to say that only God can take life away. Third, if God had planned the creation of this fetus since before the world began, then he must have also been aware that it would be aborted. The abortion would be just as much a part of his plan as the fetuses' creation.
The fact is, religion really has no place in this discussion. Whether I believe in God or not doesn't have any bearing on this argument and I'll explain why. First, it is simply an appeal to authority. To say that something is morally wrong just because the Catholic Church says so is a ridiculous argument. If the Catholic Church says that you have a duty to murder every left-handed person you see, does that automatically make it morally right? Of course not! Even if you just use the Bible as a moral guide, that still isn't sufficient. The Bible is unbelievably vague. If I'm not mistaken, it never says: "Thou shalt not abort a fetus under any circumstances because a fetus is a person and its rights outweigh the rights of the mother." It is only people's interpretations of the Bible that lead to this conclusion. You can interpret the Bible any way you want. Now, if it's your personal belief that abortion is wrong under any and all circumstances, then that's fine. I actually find it rather noble that some people live by that. To limit the rights of others based on these beliefs however, is definitely not acceptable. You would be forcing a woman to carry a fetus for nine months, put her life at risk and put her through emotional trauma just because you think abortion is wrong based on some obscure passage from the Bible. Now that the religious arguments are out of the way, let's move on to some of the more convincing arguments.
"How would you like it if YOUR parents had an abortion?"
The problem with this argument is that no one knows what it's like being in other people's shoes. It's true that my parents did not have an abortion, but the circumstances surrounding my birth are not the same as the circumstances that surround the births of others. Also, my quality of life isn't the same as the quality of life for others! If I was going to be born with a disease that would lead to a horrible and painful death, then I probably wouldn't want to have been born. Is it really fair to force a fetus to be born into excruciating pain? Is it right to force a baby to experience nothing but horrible pain and suffering just so you can go to bed with a clear conscience? The right to life is only Prima Facie the correct thing. The quality of life isn't the same for all people, and they might prefer death over a short and painful life. Some people DO wish they had never been born. There is such a thing as a wrongful birth.
"A fetus is a person because it is genetically human"
It IS true that a fetus is genetically human, but that does not automatically make a fetus a person. A severed finger is also "genetically human". Does that mean it's also a person? Does that mean a severed finger is entitled to all the rights we have? Does it have the right to life? The right to free speech? Using this argument, you could claim that a severed finger is as much a 'person' as you, me or a fetus.
"The right to life is the most important right there is because without it, no other rights could exist. Therefore, it outweighs the right of women to get abortions"
I don't believe that the right to life is the most important right there is and I'll tell you why. Now, I'm not advocating murder nor am I saying that the right to life isn't an important right. I'm saying that I believe the right to self-determination to be the most important right there is. Now despite this belief, I do believe that if a fetus is viable and can live outside the mother, then her having an abortion is unnecessary and, frankly, selfish. In this case, the baby should simply be removed. Let's assume for the moment that this is not the case however. A woman is raped and is impregnated as a result. She finds out right away and wants to abort the child. Is it right for her to get an abortion? Some would say no, because she is violating the fetus's right to life. They say that the right to life is more important than the right to self-determination. After all, the right to self-determination can't exist if you're dead. The right to life has to be there for the right of self-determination to exist. I don't believe that just because the right to life comes first, it means that it's more important. We've seen that the right of self-determination cannot exist without the right to life, but is life worth living without the right of self-determination? To live in a world where I can't make a single choice or decision for myself is a horrifying thought. I wouldn't want to live in a world where I have no say in my own life. The right to life may lead to the right of self-determination, but the right of self-determination gives me the right to live and the right to die.
"Where do you draw the line?"
As is the case with most moral issues, people always take one extreme or the other. They assume that if you try to take the middle ground, it will just deteriorate into one of the extremes. In this case, people seem to think that anything not completely pro-life will slowly deteriorate into infanticide. "Where do you draw the line?" is the argument that's always used. If it's morally right to have an abortion at 2 weeks, then next it will be 2 month, then 8 month, then you'll be allowed to commit infanticide. This argument always gets on my nerves. Just because there is no clear line to draw, doesn't mean no line can be drawn. This argument can be used in every conceivable situation. You can use it the other way also. What if I think that every egg is a human life? Sure it's not fertilized, but that's not really a problem. There's plenty of sperm in the world and in most cases, it's rather easy to fertilize an egg. Therefore, by not constantly having sex, woman are killing millions of people. Even if they don't want to have sex, they could just donate the egg. How about this example: Someone is charged with sexual harassment. He claims that: "If I'm not allowed to say what I want to women, where will we draw the line? Next I won't be able to say my political opinions and it will be Nazi Germany!" These are both absurd arguments, but that's the point. The extremes of every situation are always absurd. Some abortions ARE immoral, but others are justified. I proudly stand on this so-called crumbling middle ground!
Now, I want to address all you pro-life extremists out there. First though, I want to separate you from the other pro-lifers because it's not fair to judge the entire pro-life movement based solely on your actions. I am, of course, referring to those of you who shoot abortion doctors. I'm curious, do you REALIZE how unbelievably hypocritical you are being, not to mention how stupid you are making your cause look, or are you truly THAT ignorant? I know that if I were creating a list of rules and guidelines for the pro-life movement, the first rule would be: DON'T MURDER ANYBODY! This rule would pretty much be non-negotiable. If you're part of a movement which calls itself "pro-life", you don't go around killing people! It's kind of a given.
Lastly, I would like to bring up a point which has always frustrated me to no end. It deals with adoption. First though, I want to say how much I respect those pro-lifers who adopt a child or children. I have no quarrel with them. Unfortunately, the vast MAJORITY of pro-lifers have never adopted a child, and never plan to. That makes me mad. They condemn women for having abortions and for not "taking responsibility of the child", yet they don't make a single effort to take that responsibility either. It's so easy to tell people what's morally right and wrong when you don't have to do anything about it. How about adopting a child, huh? Instead of worrying about the children which AREN'T born yet, why not help those that ARE born and which need help. Many Pro-Lifers only seem to care about unborn children. Once the child is born, they couldn't care less what happens to him or her. If every pro-lifer went up to a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and said "if you don't have an abortion, I'll adopt your child", then my respect for the Pro-Life movement would sky-rocket. Unfortunately, many of them would rather stand outside abortion clinics with signs then actually help children.
<----- Back to previous rants
<----- Back to my homepage