We need each other. Now, I'm no anthropologist; and I don't even play one on TV, but my observations of humanity indicate that there are very few real hermits among homo sapiens. Aside from the fact that I need all sorts of others to furnish me food, electricity, gasoline, and toys, I need others around - at least from time to time - with whom to share my thoughts. The necessity of living together - not just in the same house but in the same city, state, country, or planet - dictates the establishment of rules and the responsibility to abide by them.
Prohibitions against homocide, theft, and other actions deemed by our society to be counterproductive to the goals of living together harmoneously. I don't believe a significant number of human respondants would answer positively to the question: "Should we legalize all forms of homocide." I don't believe very many of us would agree that it's ok to steal a motorcycle even from someone we don't know. As our society evolves and becomes seemingly more complicated, however, the definitions of, for instance, homocide and theft become less clear.
If someone were to intentionally kill a 2 year-old child they would have committed homocide and would have violated society's rules. The debate rages on in our society, however, when a mother and her doctor conspire to end the life of an unborn child.
Abortion is just one of the many ethical debates in which our society is engaged. There are adamant proponents on both sides of the issue, who claim to hold the "proper" opinion and who believe a single rule should be established for all in society to embrace. Until the debate is concluded, those with strong opinions are injured each time an abortion is performed or each time a mother is denied the opportunity to chose the fate of her unborn.
If there were only two sides to this issue, it would be easy to end the debate: 50% + 1 would do it and those on the "losing side" would have the obligation to abide by the wishes of the majority. As with most complicated ethical issues, however, there are at least two more "sides" to the debate. Today, the ballot would have to include a box to check for: "I don't care" and for "I can't comprehend the issue." Unfortunately, these two latter positions would probably garner a lot more than 50% + 1 of the vote and that is the reason the issue has not yet been settled.
I must confess that being in the middle of the road on this issue is comfortable. I don't have to expend a lot of mental energy defending my position and I don't have to alienate my friends who have a strong opinion one way or the other. Realizing that my silence is delaying the day when we'll get this debate behind us, I've decided to speak out and I urge all the others who are comfortable in the middle of the road to get onto one side or the other and take a few of the rocks being tossed from the opposing side. It is our obligation to help society resolve the issue.
Abortion is wrong!
If homocide is wrong, and a child becomes a human being at the moment of conception, how can we view abortion as anything less than the taking of a human life.
Prohibitions against homocide, theft, and other actions deemed by our society to be counterproductive to the goals of living together harmoneously. I don't believe a significant number of human respondants would answer positively to the question: "Should we legalize all forms of homocide." I don't believe very many of us would agree that it's ok to steal a motorcycle even from someone we don't know. As our society evolves and becomes seemingly more complicated, however, the definitions of, for instance, homocide and theft become less clear.
If someone were to intentionally kill a 2 year-old child they would have committed homocide and would have violated society's rules. The debate rages on in our society, however, when a mother and her doctor conspire to end the life of an unborn child.
Abortion is just one of the many ethical debates in which our society is engaged. There are adamant proponents on both sides of the issue, who claim to hold the "proper" opinion and who believe a single rule should be established for all in society to embrace. Until the debate is concluded, those with strong opinions are injured each time an abortion is performed or each time a mother is denied the opportunity to chose the fate of her unborn.
If there were only two sides to this issue, it would be easy to end the debate: 50% + 1 would do it and those on the "losing side" would have the obligation to abide by the wishes of the majority. As with most complicated ethical issues, however, there are at least two more "sides" to the debate. Today, the ballot would have to include a box to check for: "I don't care" and for "I can't comprehend the issue." Unfortunately, these two latter positions would probably garner a lot more than 50% + 1 of the vote and that is the reason the issue has not yet been settled.
I must confess that being in the middle of the road on this issue is comfortable. I don't have to expend a lot of mental energy defending my position and I don't have to alienate my friends who have a strong opinion one way or the other. Realizing that my silence is delaying the day when we'll get this debate behind us, I've decided to speak out and I urge all the others who are comfortable in the middle of the road to get onto one side or the other and take a few of the rocks being tossed from the opposing side. It is our obligation to help society resolve the issue.
Abortion is wrong!
If homocide is wrong, and a child becomes a human being at the moment of conception, how can we view abortion as anything less than the taking of a human life.
3 comments:
I agree. The debate is full of complexities beyond the "human at conception" argument but it's hard to accept that any of the rights and desires of the mother outweigh the right of a child to survive.
What about instances of rape and incest?
In an effort to be objective, there are reasonable arguments on the pro-choice side but reasonable does not equal correct.
The expectant mother in a rape situation is certainly a victim, deserving of all the care society can provide, but the additional burden of carrying the resultant baby to term seems to pale in comparison to taking its life to ease that burden.
After all, we're not asking the rape victim to bear a life-time burden (although the scars of the rape itself may be) because the newborn is subject to an acceptable choice for the mother - adoption.
Post a Comment