(Closed) Spinoff: Anti-abortion Bees – Where do you draw the moral/ethical line?posted 8 years ago in Wellness
- 8 years ago
- Wedding: October 2010
I’d like to address the “willingly had sex” and then got pregnant.
I really believe that pro-life has more to do with controlling women’s sexuality than it does with saving babies and protecting the unborn. I know that’s not a popular sentiment and people will disagree, but honestly–the idea that “well, you had sex and therefore you have to live with the consequences” is unfair because it ONLY affects the woman, not the man, as the man’s body is not affected by pregnancy. We don’t deny cancer patients the right to treatment, even when they’ve been lifelong smokers; and we don’t deny people with Type II diabetes synthetic insulin even if they acquired the condition through bad nutritional choices. We don’t deny a car-crash victim life-saving surgeries because they were speeding and may have caused the accident (and possibly killed someone else). If the parents conceived a child and then found out they were carriers of Tay-Sachs and that the child had a high percentage chance of having it, are you going to say, “Well, that’s on you, parents–you should have done your due diligence–so you’ve got to spend 2 years at tremendous medical and emotional expense watching your child die?”
The other thing is, “I’m against abortion except in these cases” is to me, a nice idea, but practically-speaking naive. What are we going to do? Force rape victims (an already underreported crime and VERY difficult to prosecute) to go to court in order to prove rape (within 3 monhts of the crime, nonetheless)? What are the issues that affect the “life of the mother”? Does the mother have to die? Or would becoming a paraplegic qualify? What’s the appropriate risk percentage for the mother to be risking death in order to abort the child? 100% certainty? 80%? 60%? What if the chances of the mother dying start at 30% and then increase to 80%, but by that time, the fetus is 8 months old? I could make the argument that if keeping the baby requires a woman to have a relationship with an abusive partner (because he could procure rights to the child too), give up on her education, get kicked out of her parents’ house, then all that is affecting “the life of the mother” even if the pregnancy isn’t a direct cause of imminent death. Is it fair that if a couple finds out that their second child has severe cerebral palsy, to drain the college fund that was for their first child?
My point is not for people to answer these questions (unless you really want to), so much as to say we’re ALL going to have different responses because they’re ethical and moral gray areas–and that’s the point. Abortion is almost always gray and almost never black-or-white. Since I therefore believe that it’s a medical procedure that’s the business of the mother, her doctor, and her God, and not me, not you, and not the government, I think that the CHOICE to have one should be preserved.
I understand that “pro-choice” is seen as bad nomenclature by the “pro-life” movement, in part because it omits the fetus as the entity that does NOT have a choice in the event of an abortion. My response is that I’m not willing to override the actual rights of a living, thinking, adult woman with the theoretical rights of a fetus.
I very much agree with this statement: “And most of the politiicans who call themselves pro-life just have no interest in helping the mom prior to getting pregnant or helping her and the baby afterward. I call them Pro-Carrying-To-Term because that’s really all they are.” As George Carlin once said, “If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re in preschool, you’re fucked.”
- 7 years ago
If you haven’t been in this situation I do not believe you should judge
The topic ‘Spinoff: Anti-abortion Bees – Where do you draw the moral/ethical line?’ is closed to new replies.