What Is the Lesson Here?

[orionrioniononn]

Edit:

In America, I need to know:
Where is the place for people like me,
who feel it is important for a civilized society to make abortion safe and available for those who need it
and who also believe that the ending of a pregnancy,
however it happens,
also releases a tiny spirit into the air?

~ Marie Myung-Ok Lee, the author of Somebody's Daughter: A

Comments

throwing a few arguments out there

[anonymous]

1) The argument that men can not pass legislation or moral judgement on abortion because it is something that only women experience is flawed. Legislators represent the will of the people, including that of women. Perhaps before women's sufferage, the government shouldn't have the right to pass legislation on abortions, but that argument can not be made anymore. Moreover, I would argue that abortion does not just affect women, but it has moral repurcussions on our society as a whole. The right to end a baby's life is a matter, which affects everyone. As such, it is not fair to say that "men cannot on subjects they'll never have to deal with (I wouldn't take kindly to women legislating on prostates, either)." If men's prostates started to take the lives of children, then every member of our society ought to have the right to decide whether this is right or wrong, or at the very least express some sort of moral opinion on the matter.

2) Ignoring the morality of abortions in general, the morality of aborting a baby with down's syndrome should not be based on any inconveniences, difficulty, or grief that the family of a down's syndrome child deals with. I don't think anyone would really argue that taking a life to ease the burden on others and society is morally justified. Thus, all arguments should be based on the welfare of the baby with down's syndrome and the societal impacts that such abortions would have. I suppose some of the questions that would come up are:
- What would the down's baby want? Would he/she want to grow up w/ down's syndrome or rather die?
- Since the baby w/ down's syndrome obviously can't decide that, do parents have a right to decide such things?

3) The argument that we should not abort babies because it sends the wrong message about acceptance and discriminiation is also iffy. For one thing, we should not be using the welfare of a child as a means to promote acceptance and tolerance in our society.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[orionrioniononn]

1) I think that a flaw in your argument, though, is that you automatically jump to the assumption that this is the death of a baby. I will say that I, too, feel that this is a life that is taken, no matter how primitively formed, but this is not a given that everyone accepts.

I think the better argument is that no sex chooses to be the sex it is, so why is the opinion of a man held against him simply because he does not have a uterus? Is he penalized for his penis? Did he choose to be a man? If I could, I would choose to have a uterus so that I could bear a child. I feel like oftentimes, many women who make this argument are just too quick to fall back on double standards of when men are allowed to and when men are not allowed to contribute to a decision, but shouldn't the person making a decision consider the viewpoints of all those that are important to her, even if that includes listening to a man?

2) Those are good questions, but again, I feel that they do not rest upon assumptions that would be made by everyone, that is, 1) the assumption that what is inside the womb is a child, and 2) whether what is inside has any rights.

In the next part, to answer your question, I will use parents to mean the person(s) who are going to be raising the child, should it live to make it out of the womb.

Regardless of what it is called, though, I think the parents do have a right to decide, but perhaps conditional abortion was something they should have discussed before even choosing to have a child. Certainly opinions may change once things are more finalized (i.e., they may not have wanted to abort a zygote/fetus/etc. with a disability before they even conceived, but upon conception and finding out that the z/f/e. has a disability, they may change their mind), but that does not change their right. We as a country, and I think even as a species, believe that parents hold rights over what they

3) I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Why not? And if not that, then what?

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[anonymous]

1) I don't think my argument is based on the assumption that all people accept that abortion is the taking of the life of a baby. Even if we dont' automatically assume that abortion is taking the life of a baby, our society as a whole has a right to determine the morality of abortions - that is, in essence whether or not the fetus is considered alive and whether or not we have the right to destroy/kill/remove it. The point being that moral decisions of this magnitude affect our entire society, men and women alike, and thus should not be legislated by only roughly half the population.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[orionrioniononn]

But that's the thing: I think that when someone makes this sort of decision, it's based less on morals and more on things like circumstances, finances, value of a life already living versus one not yet established. I am not saying that someone who gets an abortion is amoral or immoral, but that they are not considering this to be a decision of a moral nature.

I say this because I think it is why the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps will never be able to see eye to eye: They use different language. The former tries to argue rights and liberties and the latter tries to argue morality. How can either team debate or create a solution if they don't have the same basic givens?

I will take your word that you do not intend to make an argument based on the assumption that all people accept that abortion is the taking of a life. But I do ask you to re-read number 1 of your initial argument and perhaps watch your wording more carefully in the future. And if I have not made it clear why it seems as if you are making that assumption because of your linkage between abortion and a "moral decision," please let me know.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[anonymous]

2) With respect to the statement that not all people agree that what is inside the womb is considered a life, I think this is the crux of the moral debate on abortion and is inherent in any discussions we have about it. However, with eugenics, I think the assumption can be made that what is inside the womb is in fact alive or is potentially alive. Otherwise, what the hell are they testing? Can something not alive have Down's Syndrome? Moreover, a lot of the arguments are based on potential life, i.e. how the fetus's possible life will be affected by down's syndrome and how the fetus's possible life will affect the parents.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[orionrioniononn]

You raise a very good point. My rebuttal is then, although what is being tested may be alive, how do we consider whether or not it is human? How do we assign any right to life to it?

As for your last statement, the key words are potential and possible. Like I've tried to address, if I were to get an abortion, what would weigh heavily in my mind is now versus later. I know what life is like now, but I don't know what life will be like in the future. I must base my decision on whether or not I am satisifed by what the past and present show me.

Whether or not this is the "right" or preferred thought process is another issue, but I think that this is what it would be.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[anonymous]

3) The argument that we should not abort babies because it sends the wrong message about acceptance and discriminiation is also iffy. For one thing, we should not be using the welfare of a child as a means to promote acceptance and tolerance in our society. --> In other words, we shouldn't be doing or not doing certain things just because it sends a positive message. If we assume aborting the down's syndrome fetus is the morally right thing to do, we shouldn't force the parent's to have the down's baby just cuz it sends a message about acceptance. Whether something is moral in and in of itself is not determined by any messages it sends.

Re: throwing a few arguments out there

[orionrioniononn]

If morality is not determined by the perception of the action, then by what is it determined?

By the way, if you're online and have AIM (and want to), you can IM me at keneticmotion.