- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I find it disturbing that one of the most contentious issues of our time never gets addressed thoroughly and generally rests on a wholly inadequate argument that the sum total of the abortion issue is a woman's right to do as she will with her own body. This breaks down really quickly when you consider the implications for the life of someone else's body (i.e., the child's) and assuming de facto control over yet another person's body (i.e., the father's in the case of birth) for decades. Yes, I consider taking resources produced by a person's work to be exerting control over that person's body.
First, we have the argument over personhood, which is chronically filled with disingenuous arguments and/or combinations of arguments. It is critical to have an absolute answer to the point at which life exists, or at minimum a consistent legal standard. You may notice that the murder of a pregnant woman generally precipitates two separate murder charges. Under the present state of law this is absolutely indefensible. The rule of law cannot tolerate a given individual, in this case an unborn child either being a person or not being a person changeable at any time without notice on the whim of one individual. It at minimum needs to be one way or the other.
The next problem is that if a person reaches the conclusion I consider most reasonable, that an unborn child is indeed a separate and distinct life--a person--then abortion is murder under any and all circumstances under which it may happen. At this point, we must either categorically prohibit abortion or legalize all forms of murder. Any argument aside from this is made from the perspective of being delusional, a liar, or having a complete lack of any sense of objective morality and a complete absence of any sense of rule of law that would make Roy Bean proud.
Second, assuming that we put the argument of personhood to rest one way or other, the next problem is that of equal rights. The present liberal mantra is that it is a woman's choice alone. Setting aside the moral implications, that argument would have merit if she were making a life-changing decision for herself only. As it stands, a woman can have an abortion on demand (i.e., make a unilateral decision to walk away from a pregnancy with no consequences). She can also choose to give birth. The problem is that assuming that she was not raped, two people hold equal responsibility for the pregnancy, but one of those two can act alone to decide the life or death of one individual and can deprive the other of the joys of parenthood with no recourse or perhaps worse yet can force him to pay, in some cases extortionary sums for the next two decades with the man being afforded no influence on the decision whatsoever. If there were equality, a man should have an equal opportunity to walk away with no responsibility (in case of rape, I would put a rapist on work release with the proceeds going to the child and after the child is raised sending the rapist to serve a prison term).
If we are to tolerate abortion, then a woman should have the first option to opt out, but a man should also have an option to opt out with an equally clean break and walk away free and clear (obviously without any parental rights, privileges, or future contact). I would also like to see a vehicle in which a motivated father could have a child and allow the mother to walk away free and clear after giving birth under the aforementioned terms.
The question is: Do we or do we not believe in equality? If we accept the personhood of an unborn child yet allow the murder of such persons, we have a huge and unacceptable inequality. If we do not accept such personhood, not so much. How can the thinnest pretense of equality before the law be made if it is somehow a violation of a woman's rights to relinquish control over her body for 3/4 of one year, but it is perfectly acceptable to allow her to control as much or more of someone else's life for decades? At minimum, I would argue that this proves that liberal ideologues are either very dishonest or else clinically insane.
I have presented two points in which one cannot have it both ways with any pretense of honesty. What do you think?
First, we have the argument over personhood, which is chronically filled with disingenuous arguments and/or combinations of arguments. It is critical to have an absolute answer to the point at which life exists, or at minimum a consistent legal standard. You may notice that the murder of a pregnant woman generally precipitates two separate murder charges. Under the present state of law this is absolutely indefensible. The rule of law cannot tolerate a given individual, in this case an unborn child either being a person or not being a person changeable at any time without notice on the whim of one individual. It at minimum needs to be one way or the other.
The next problem is that if a person reaches the conclusion I consider most reasonable, that an unborn child is indeed a separate and distinct life--a person--then abortion is murder under any and all circumstances under which it may happen. At this point, we must either categorically prohibit abortion or legalize all forms of murder. Any argument aside from this is made from the perspective of being delusional, a liar, or having a complete lack of any sense of objective morality and a complete absence of any sense of rule of law that would make Roy Bean proud.
Second, assuming that we put the argument of personhood to rest one way or other, the next problem is that of equal rights. The present liberal mantra is that it is a woman's choice alone. Setting aside the moral implications, that argument would have merit if she were making a life-changing decision for herself only. As it stands, a woman can have an abortion on demand (i.e., make a unilateral decision to walk away from a pregnancy with no consequences). She can also choose to give birth. The problem is that assuming that she was not raped, two people hold equal responsibility for the pregnancy, but one of those two can act alone to decide the life or death of one individual and can deprive the other of the joys of parenthood with no recourse or perhaps worse yet can force him to pay, in some cases extortionary sums for the next two decades with the man being afforded no influence on the decision whatsoever. If there were equality, a man should have an equal opportunity to walk away with no responsibility (in case of rape, I would put a rapist on work release with the proceeds going to the child and after the child is raised sending the rapist to serve a prison term).
If we are to tolerate abortion, then a woman should have the first option to opt out, but a man should also have an option to opt out with an equally clean break and walk away free and clear (obviously without any parental rights, privileges, or future contact). I would also like to see a vehicle in which a motivated father could have a child and allow the mother to walk away free and clear after giving birth under the aforementioned terms.
The question is: Do we or do we not believe in equality? If we accept the personhood of an unborn child yet allow the murder of such persons, we have a huge and unacceptable inequality. If we do not accept such personhood, not so much. How can the thinnest pretense of equality before the law be made if it is somehow a violation of a woman's rights to relinquish control over her body for 3/4 of one year, but it is perfectly acceptable to allow her to control as much or more of someone else's life for decades? At minimum, I would argue that this proves that liberal ideologues are either very dishonest or else clinically insane.
I have presented two points in which one cannot have it both ways with any pretense of honesty. What do you think?
I have to point out that the bolded section is technically incorrect. Obama voted twice (once in the Illinois legislature and once in the Senate) against legal protections for babies born alive after failed attempts to abort, so being fully out in the atmosphere isn't even a high enough standard for that sorry, sorry piece of dirt.
