Abortion.
There's not much that I want to say on the subject of abortion, but this week when I read about the US Doctor George Tiller being gunned down for being a late-pregnancy abortionist, the cold and disturbing matter was once again raised. I have personal views about it as well as faith-based views on it, but I don't want to discuss my own views in this post. Rather, I want to discuss the issues that I feel the two main sides of the subject - Pro-life and Pro-choice - have and the contradictions which I think follow.
Pro-Choice
This side of the argument, as I understand it, justifies a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before the foetus is legally recognised as a human being at twenty-two weeks. The main logic for this is that seeing that the woman is the carrier or incubator of the unborn child, she ultimately has sole power over what happens to it until it enters the world where external powers and pressures may decide otherwise. But carrying something, and in this case someone, does not necessarily mean that your decision is right - hence follows the main argument against pro-choice supporters. The only question I have is: what choice does the child have? Because if we take away the legal, moral and parental constraints, then really the child's best interests are the only ones which ultimately count. I'm not condemning anyone or trying to make pro-choice seem useless. I just believe that some people involved in the issue of pro-choice seem to forget that the child - 22 weeks or not- needs a voice.
Pro-Life
On the other hand, pro-life supporters seem to recognise that the foetus is a child right from the point of conception, and therefore should be treated and recognised as such. In other words, termination of a pregnancy is not an option. In my observation a lot of pro-life supporters are religious fundamentalists who argue that only God who gives and allows life may take it away. Whether or not one believes in God, the argument has a crucial point that life is sacred and that as human beings we should no be allowed to give and take it as we see fit. But when we couple this view with the fact that some pro-life supporters believe that it is ok to take the life of an abortionist such as George Tiller in order to prevent further abortions, the pro-life argument falls apart. Life is life- whether it belongs to a foetus or a doctor.
I don't like sitting on the fence, especially when the paint on each side is still wet and yet to dry. It looks to me as though both sides of the "abortion:yes vs abortion:no" argument miss vital points about children, responsibility and life. Murder, however, does not solve any of the endless questions on the subject of abortion. But in the midst of all the choas which surrounds the debate, it looks as though those who take extreme and sometimes vicious actions are the ones who really decide where the debate stands. Those who vandalise abortion clinics and stalk the people coming in and out of them, or who take it further and kill the abortionists are deciding that rights and laws are not enough to determine the future of an unborn foetus. And those who continue to drive home the point that it is a woman's right to choose are deciding that by overlooking the rights of the foetus they are simplifying something far more complex.
And so my nit-picking of the two abortion arguments comes full circle without being able to fully reach a definite conclusion, as does the debate about abortion itself. What next?
There's not much that I want to say on the subject of abortion, but this week when I read about the US Doctor George Tiller being gunned down for being a late-pregnancy abortionist, the cold and disturbing matter was once again raised. I have personal views about it as well as faith-based views on it, but I don't want to discuss my own views in this post. Rather, I want to discuss the issues that I feel the two main sides of the subject - Pro-life and Pro-choice - have and the contradictions which I think follow.
Pro-Choice
This side of the argument, as I understand it, justifies a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before the foetus is legally recognised as a human being at twenty-two weeks. The main logic for this is that seeing that the woman is the carrier or incubator of the unborn child, she ultimately has sole power over what happens to it until it enters the world where external powers and pressures may decide otherwise. But carrying something, and in this case someone, does not necessarily mean that your decision is right - hence follows the main argument against pro-choice supporters. The only question I have is: what choice does the child have? Because if we take away the legal, moral and parental constraints, then really the child's best interests are the only ones which ultimately count. I'm not condemning anyone or trying to make pro-choice seem useless. I just believe that some people involved in the issue of pro-choice seem to forget that the child - 22 weeks or not- needs a voice.
Pro-Life
On the other hand, pro-life supporters seem to recognise that the foetus is a child right from the point of conception, and therefore should be treated and recognised as such. In other words, termination of a pregnancy is not an option. In my observation a lot of pro-life supporters are religious fundamentalists who argue that only God who gives and allows life may take it away. Whether or not one believes in God, the argument has a crucial point that life is sacred and that as human beings we should no be allowed to give and take it as we see fit. But when we couple this view with the fact that some pro-life supporters believe that it is ok to take the life of an abortionist such as George Tiller in order to prevent further abortions, the pro-life argument falls apart. Life is life- whether it belongs to a foetus or a doctor.
I don't like sitting on the fence, especially when the paint on each side is still wet and yet to dry. It looks to me as though both sides of the "abortion:yes vs abortion:no" argument miss vital points about children, responsibility and life. Murder, however, does not solve any of the endless questions on the subject of abortion. But in the midst of all the choas which surrounds the debate, it looks as though those who take extreme and sometimes vicious actions are the ones who really decide where the debate stands. Those who vandalise abortion clinics and stalk the people coming in and out of them, or who take it further and kill the abortionists are deciding that rights and laws are not enough to determine the future of an unborn foetus. And those who continue to drive home the point that it is a woman's right to choose are deciding that by overlooking the rights of the foetus they are simplifying something far more complex.
And so my nit-picking of the two abortion arguments comes full circle without being able to fully reach a definite conclusion, as does the debate about abortion itself. What next?
i like this post, i have never taken time to read your posts. but i like ur creativity.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback, much appreciated :)
ReplyDelete