Regulating Abortion Thoughts in 2x17
So while watching “The Captain’s Hand” again last night, K and I got into a very heated debate about the issue of abortion in terms of what wins out, individual rights or the needs of the whole. So I decided to enumerate some of the arguments instead of studying of a medical school test I have this week. I’m sure there are more that I haven’t thought of but these were the most glaring to me. Some of my observations may be a bit far-fetched but I try to take them to their natural conclusion. **Excuse the poorly written statements, I had to write this during lecture and don't really have the time to edit it properly. Hopefully you get my salient points though** While I think it's great that RDM is stimulating debate and conversation about these topics and perhaps the choices made during the episode were to further along a certain plot line but I feel as though the abortion issue shouldn't have been an issue at all, or be a decisive issue because it could handled in such a smarter way.
Needs of the Whole
Dr. Baltar’s projects modeled that within 18 years, the human race will go extinct. Given that this will be true, it is best to nip this in the bud so to speak and regulate abortions, which logically would be not allowing the population grow to keep the human race propagating. An abortion is basically denying the human race as a whole to grow because of the loss of even 1 life. Irregardless of any reglious argument, in terms of logistics, people need to have babies.
Let’s just look at this in terms of numbers.
The population is at approximately 48,000. With a limited about of number of people, you have deaths due to age, death due to illness, death due to accidents, death due to attacks from other humans, and death due to attacks from the cylons. With all the things that are decreasing the number, you can’t take any chances with the possibility of increasing that number. Even saving 1 human, may mean the difference between life and death of humanity. The end ultimately justifies the means. If you can keep the human race alive by saving even 1 baby by banning abortions, then that is the right course of action.
Possible policies that can be created to moderate abortion is allowing families to adopt children that the birth mother does not decide to keep. It may be possible to give incentives to adopt children.
Individual rights
Placing the needs of the whole before individual rights takes away from our humanity.
Besides the individual rights, there are major logistical issues with banning abortion.
1. If people are found to either facilitating abortions or obtaining one, what will be the penalties under the law. If the doctors are to be prosecuted, you’re decreasing the population of doctors which I am guessing to already be strained. So you’re in punishing those that participate, the government will be deceasing public health with the lack of healthcare professionals. Another logistical issue is that where will you be placing these people in terms of prisons. You’re creating an increasing prison population without accommodating them. Also, if the woman is placed in prison before the abortion took place, who will take care of the baby ultimately.
2. Another issue is what will be the outcome of these children that are born during such a difficult time. The stress of being under attack, lack of resources, and uncertainty of the future may not be the most conducive to raise well adjusted children who would be constructive members of society.
3. Some questions I would have for President Rosalin would be
a. How do you propose to feed and house an increase in population that you would like to see due to the lack of abortions
b. Do you know the rate of abortions and if it will significantly impact the populations?
c. Who is to say that Dr. Baltar’s model of population dynamics will be sustained through the 18 years. If changes are made in terms of social feelings about having children, then the model would be outdated and would need to be recalculated. Models are never 100% correct. Who is to say that the model will actually be true? Do you stake enough on this one model, is this enough to take away a freedom from people?
d. At what point will the needs of the whole not outweigh the needs of the individual, where do you draw the line?
e. Wouldn’t it be better to have a policy encouraging people to have children rather than regulating birthing practices and taking away a woman’s right to choose.
Logistics aside, the principle of taking away someone’s right to choose cannot be taken lightly. To base the decision to take a woman’s right to choose based on one model of population without putting any stipulations or restrictions. What if a woman is raped. Is she obligated to have that baby? If the baby were to be born an the she were to resent the baby, think about the consequences for that child. Being raised in a hostile environment is not only detrimental to the child, but possibly future generations that it may be propagated through the child’s future family. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body is a personal freedom that is intrinsic to being a woman. To take away this right basically objectifies women into being breeding chambers. Because the need of the whole requires for babies to be born, women are objects that are only good for the production of children. So lets take this a bit further. If a woman is ever in danger or put in places of danger, then you’re decreasing the probability of having a supply of breeding chambers. To increase the chances of increasing the population, we should lock up all the women and constantly impregnate them to increase the human population if that is final outcome that the community wants. This is a logical conclusion. My question is, where does this stop? Where do you draw the line in terms of which rights you do give and which rights you rae able to take way. When you take away on right, I believe you’re on a slippery slope.
I have to believe that had to have been a smarter way of going about increasing the population. Create a campaign to encourage people to have children. Give incentives to have children. Why regulate when you can influence people’s decision to have children. Having children should always be a deliberate choice and should be reared in a healthy constant environment whether you're on planet earth or in any circumstance.
GAH! I had some other stuff but basically what I wanted to say in the end is that the campaign didn't need to be about abortion. It could have been handled in a more delicate manner so that it wasn't about the needs of the individual weighing the needs of the whole. Isn't it easier to attract bees with honey than vinegar?
Needs of the Whole
Dr. Baltar’s projects modeled that within 18 years, the human race will go extinct. Given that this will be true, it is best to nip this in the bud so to speak and regulate abortions, which logically would be not allowing the population grow to keep the human race propagating. An abortion is basically denying the human race as a whole to grow because of the loss of even 1 life. Irregardless of any reglious argument, in terms of logistics, people need to have babies.
Let’s just look at this in terms of numbers.
The population is at approximately 48,000. With a limited about of number of people, you have deaths due to age, death due to illness, death due to accidents, death due to attacks from other humans, and death due to attacks from the cylons. With all the things that are decreasing the number, you can’t take any chances with the possibility of increasing that number. Even saving 1 human, may mean the difference between life and death of humanity. The end ultimately justifies the means. If you can keep the human race alive by saving even 1 baby by banning abortions, then that is the right course of action.
Possible policies that can be created to moderate abortion is allowing families to adopt children that the birth mother does not decide to keep. It may be possible to give incentives to adopt children.
Individual rights
Placing the needs of the whole before individual rights takes away from our humanity.
Besides the individual rights, there are major logistical issues with banning abortion.
1. If people are found to either facilitating abortions or obtaining one, what will be the penalties under the law. If the doctors are to be prosecuted, you’re decreasing the population of doctors which I am guessing to already be strained. So you’re in punishing those that participate, the government will be deceasing public health with the lack of healthcare professionals. Another logistical issue is that where will you be placing these people in terms of prisons. You’re creating an increasing prison population without accommodating them. Also, if the woman is placed in prison before the abortion took place, who will take care of the baby ultimately.
2. Another issue is what will be the outcome of these children that are born during such a difficult time. The stress of being under attack, lack of resources, and uncertainty of the future may not be the most conducive to raise well adjusted children who would be constructive members of society.
3. Some questions I would have for President Rosalin would be
a. How do you propose to feed and house an increase in population that you would like to see due to the lack of abortions
b. Do you know the rate of abortions and if it will significantly impact the populations?
c. Who is to say that Dr. Baltar’s model of population dynamics will be sustained through the 18 years. If changes are made in terms of social feelings about having children, then the model would be outdated and would need to be recalculated. Models are never 100% correct. Who is to say that the model will actually be true? Do you stake enough on this one model, is this enough to take away a freedom from people?
d. At what point will the needs of the whole not outweigh the needs of the individual, where do you draw the line?
e. Wouldn’t it be better to have a policy encouraging people to have children rather than regulating birthing practices and taking away a woman’s right to choose.
Logistics aside, the principle of taking away someone’s right to choose cannot be taken lightly. To base the decision to take a woman’s right to choose based on one model of population without putting any stipulations or restrictions. What if a woman is raped. Is she obligated to have that baby? If the baby were to be born an the she were to resent the baby, think about the consequences for that child. Being raised in a hostile environment is not only detrimental to the child, but possibly future generations that it may be propagated through the child’s future family. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body is a personal freedom that is intrinsic to being a woman. To take away this right basically objectifies women into being breeding chambers. Because the need of the whole requires for babies to be born, women are objects that are only good for the production of children. So lets take this a bit further. If a woman is ever in danger or put in places of danger, then you’re decreasing the probability of having a supply of breeding chambers. To increase the chances of increasing the population, we should lock up all the women and constantly impregnate them to increase the human population if that is final outcome that the community wants. This is a logical conclusion. My question is, where does this stop? Where do you draw the line in terms of which rights you do give and which rights you rae able to take way. When you take away on right, I believe you’re on a slippery slope.
I have to believe that had to have been a smarter way of going about increasing the population. Create a campaign to encourage people to have children. Give incentives to have children. Why regulate when you can influence people’s decision to have children. Having children should always be a deliberate choice and should be reared in a healthy constant environment whether you're on planet earth or in any circumstance.
GAH! I had some other stuff but basically what I wanted to say in the end is that the campaign didn't need to be about abortion. It could have been handled in a more delicate manner so that it wasn't about the needs of the individual weighing the needs of the whole. Isn't it easier to attract bees with honey than vinegar?