ABORTION: "To be or not to be."
Abortion should be legal, but it should only be considered, like war or justifiable homicide, a last resort.
Human life is a precious commodity. John Donne: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There are those who refer to an unborn child as a fetus, and, moreoever, use the issue of viability as a criteria for the emergence of human life, I ask them: isn't viability too non-definitive a criteria? I have a year old granddaughter. If we left her out of doors without human assistance, would she be viable? Could she maintain herself without adult cooperation?
A "woman's right to choose" is killing another human being. What's wrong with owning up to that. It is a solemn obligation; again, like war, under certain circumstances, it may very well be the best path to follow, the chosen option, but it should always be selected as a sad, weighty form of human decision at best.
Abortion should never be chosen lightly, and never as a form of after-the-fact contraception.
"Oops; I forgot" is the height of irresponsibily, laziness and self-indulgence. Take the pill or put on a condom, for God's sake.
Let us consider the hypothetical situation where an unwanted fetus/child is required by law to be carried to full term and then put up for adoption.
If the child is Euro-American, the chances are that the new born will be scooped up eagerly. No orphanages or foster homes for that child.
If black or Hispanic, the child is less likely to be quickly taken, true. But isn't society capable of taking care of a few more children? Let's say 100,000 children would be born (10% of the million abortions estimated to happen annually) if abortion were more weightily considered, is that so much? Aren't we already legally and socially committed to taking care of the newly born children of teen-age unmarrieds (Aid to Dependent Children), and to the children of illegal immigrants. (of which, given the 12,000,000 total undocumented aliens in the country, at least 20%, 2,400,000, must be children). We provide them with emergency room care and free schooling. Would another 100,000 added to the population rolls break us, detroy our economy?
How else can maintain the responsibility of sexual behavior if we deny its legitimate consequences?
What about a woman's mental state, you might ask; have I considered that? Giving a child up for adoption is a traumatic experience? Yes. Isn't all killing? Like war, any death of another human being should always be terrifying...which is why we shouldn't make it easier by demonizing the enemy by calling it fetus or speaking of mass deaths as collateral damage. A woman and her sexual partner should think of the traumatic consequences of refused parenthood and adoption before they have unprotected sex.
What about rape? What about rape? In a physical attack, I could lose a leg or arm. Is losing a resultant child to adoption a lesser loss or pain than losing an arm or leg? What about incest? The same can be argued for this terrible act. Unwanted physical consequences accrue throughout life...we must bare up up heroically under them. It is the noblest part of being human.
Besides, how many children would be born from incest? Is it worth diminishing the value of all human life because of thinning blood and a few slightly 'off' children may result? Are we talking eugenics here: only there hardy and most competent are allowed to become alive?
I launched launch into this aria/diatribe because of a discussion I read in "The Atlantic Monthly" about the possible requirement of pregnant woman being made to view a sonar of the fetus before deciding to abort. Pro-abortion proponents argue said it would be a great deterrent to abortion. Right! Shouldn't we deter the taking of life, be it fetal or unborn, if at all possible?
Allow abortion; but don't take it lightly. That's all I'm asking. Make it a solemn, well-considered decision, worthy or a prosperous, enlightened and humanistic society.
Wait a minute: I have left men out of the equation! Should they get off scot-free? Of course not. It takes two to tango. A society should fight as valiantly to demand--and receive--their total and unabashed contribution to the birth and mainenance of a child. Consentual sex is a mutual act, an implied contract. Strengthen the laws; throw the recalcitrant (especially the upper-middle class ones!) in jail are. Legally require them with extra-zealous enforcement to be as responsible for their sex acts as women.
But even if men are all bastards, beyond redemption, none willing to assume the burden and obligations to their sex life, should all woman be Medea? Willing to kill her children because she is pissed off at the betrayer Jason? I would rather argue: kill Jason, and "suffer the little children unto me."
Human life is a precious commodity. John Donne: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There are those who refer to an unborn child as a fetus, and, moreoever, use the issue of viability as a criteria for the emergence of human life, I ask them: isn't viability too non-definitive a criteria? I have a year old granddaughter. If we left her out of doors without human assistance, would she be viable? Could she maintain herself without adult cooperation?
A "woman's right to choose" is killing another human being. What's wrong with owning up to that. It is a solemn obligation; again, like war, under certain circumstances, it may very well be the best path to follow, the chosen option, but it should always be selected as a sad, weighty form of human decision at best.
Abortion should never be chosen lightly, and never as a form of after-the-fact contraception.
"Oops; I forgot" is the height of irresponsibily, laziness and self-indulgence. Take the pill or put on a condom, for God's sake.
Let us consider the hypothetical situation where an unwanted fetus/child is required by law to be carried to full term and then put up for adoption.
If the child is Euro-American, the chances are that the new born will be scooped up eagerly. No orphanages or foster homes for that child.
If black or Hispanic, the child is less likely to be quickly taken, true. But isn't society capable of taking care of a few more children? Let's say 100,000 children would be born (10% of the million abortions estimated to happen annually) if abortion were more weightily considered, is that so much? Aren't we already legally and socially committed to taking care of the newly born children of teen-age unmarrieds (Aid to Dependent Children), and to the children of illegal immigrants. (of which, given the 12,000,000 total undocumented aliens in the country, at least 20%, 2,400,000, must be children). We provide them with emergency room care and free schooling. Would another 100,000 added to the population rolls break us, detroy our economy?
How else can maintain the responsibility of sexual behavior if we deny its legitimate consequences?
What about a woman's mental state, you might ask; have I considered that? Giving a child up for adoption is a traumatic experience? Yes. Isn't all killing? Like war, any death of another human being should always be terrifying...which is why we shouldn't make it easier by demonizing the enemy by calling it fetus or speaking of mass deaths as collateral damage. A woman and her sexual partner should think of the traumatic consequences of refused parenthood and adoption before they have unprotected sex.
What about rape? What about rape? In a physical attack, I could lose a leg or arm. Is losing a resultant child to adoption a lesser loss or pain than losing an arm or leg? What about incest? The same can be argued for this terrible act. Unwanted physical consequences accrue throughout life...we must bare up up heroically under them. It is the noblest part of being human.
Besides, how many children would be born from incest? Is it worth diminishing the value of all human life because of thinning blood and a few slightly 'off' children may result? Are we talking eugenics here: only there hardy and most competent are allowed to become alive?
I launched launch into this aria/diatribe because of a discussion I read in "The Atlantic Monthly" about the possible requirement of pregnant woman being made to view a sonar of the fetus before deciding to abort. Pro-abortion proponents argue said it would be a great deterrent to abortion. Right! Shouldn't we deter the taking of life, be it fetal or unborn, if at all possible?
Allow abortion; but don't take it lightly. That's all I'm asking. Make it a solemn, well-considered decision, worthy or a prosperous, enlightened and humanistic society.
Wait a minute: I have left men out of the equation! Should they get off scot-free? Of course not. It takes two to tango. A society should fight as valiantly to demand--and receive--their total and unabashed contribution to the birth and mainenance of a child. Consentual sex is a mutual act, an implied contract. Strengthen the laws; throw the recalcitrant (especially the upper-middle class ones!) in jail are. Legally require them with extra-zealous enforcement to be as responsible for their sex acts as women.
But even if men are all bastards, beyond redemption, none willing to assume the burden and obligations to their sex life, should all woman be Medea? Willing to kill her children because she is pissed off at the betrayer Jason? I would rather argue: kill Jason, and "suffer the little children unto me."
posted by Cliff Osmond at 3:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home