Over the course of history there are certain topics, phrases, and occurrences which fall in and out of acceptance, vehemently condemned one decade, a social norm the next. Our grandparents balk at the inculcation of sex in nearly every aspect of the media, while, to most of this generation, it has become a normalcy to spot innuendo on Nickelodeon. With the transformation of society, other topics have surfaced, which had previously existed but were scandalous and publicly condemned. Such topics of discussion include abortion. While abortions have occurred over the course of history, never has it been so publicly debated and considered. I am personally against abortion. I believe that life begins in the embryo, and therefore believe that the practice is the destruction life. However, I do not believe that abortion should be prohibited by law. While I believe it is a horrible practice, I would adamantly defend an individual's right to have an abortion. It is not my place to impose my own moral beliefs on another individual, especially when I could not begin to understand the circumstances of an individual's decision. I have always considered myself a person of moderate philosophy and as such, have always had difficulty defining definitive positions on, well, anything. I have, however, always been against abortion. I hold little sympathy for those who utilize abortion as a form of repetitive birth control and do in some respect consider it a form of murder. While many may argue that this notion of murder is the justifiable force behind prohibition, because it is not MY body or my baby, I believe I have no right to tell someone they can't have the procedure done. Sure I think its wrong, but my idea of wrong could be drastically different from another individual's idea of wrong. Whose to say exactly whose right is truly right? Because I wouldn't have an abortion, doesn't grant me the right to force others to practice my own moral conduct. The basis of my moral conduct is primarily derived from my religion, and as such, cannot be utilized as the foundation of a prohibitory law.
The circumstances of abortion must also be considered. While I believe that there are better options available for unwanted pregnancies, this is a conviction which I have established outside of experience. Instances of abortion with pregnancies that happen as a result of rape or incest, or when the woman is somehow in danger(whether medically or otherwise) are often the subject of debate. In these circumstances, I again believe that no one has the right to restrict an individual's decision. No one should have authority over one's body, except the individual. I am able to say that I would not have an abortion under any circumstances simply because I am separated from actual experience. I cannot definitively state what I would do in a similar situation because I cannot possibly anticipate the emotional turmoil which these individuals endure. It is for this reason that I believe that no one is truly justified in making the decision other than the individual. Extremist Pro-Life groups who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion administers are heinously hypocritical. Rallying behind the idea of preserving life, they destroy life. I have considerable compassion for individuals who have abortions out of desperation. It is tragic. It is a decision which they will have to live with for their entire life and while there are those who have abortions repetitively and feel no remorse, there are also those who are tortured by their decision but felt they had no other option.
If abortions were to be prohibited by law, not only would it be an imposition of one group's moral beliefs on society, but it would put individuals in direct danger. While the law would prohibit abortions, they would inevitably still be administered, this time, however, in less contained and unsanitary atmospheres. Some may argue that in future generations abortions and other current practices will be condemned, just as we as society scrutinize the actions of our predecessors. However, we must not look at the practice in terms of our current(or future) perceptions of morality. We live in a country where everyone is entitled to their own opinions and expression of their personal liberties. If one is against abortion, they may say so, and have the freedom to decide against having one. Similarly, one should be entitled to support the choice of having an abortion and personally decide whether or not to have an abortion, without the interference of those who "know" the boundaries of morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As always, your calm rational nature allows you to see many sides of a complex issue.
You write, "It is not my place to impose my own moral beliefs on another individual, especially when I could not begin to understand the circumstances of an individual's decision."
You continue, "If abortions were to be prohibited by law, not only would it be an imposition of one group's moral beliefs on society, but it would put individuals in direct danger."
In direct danger of what? Why would it be wrong to put them in that danger? If one believes that abortion is the elimination of a human being, is that abortion not a direct danger to that human entity?
What about other laws where people must conform even if they do not believe in the law? What about theft, for example? There are all kinds of theft. What about polygamy? What about desegregation? What about tax evasion?
Why is it easy to hold a personal conviction on one issue and allow others to differ. Is it because the law has been created that permits the differences of opinion?
If it were the other way around, that abortion would be against the law, would you be as tolerant toward the person who attempted to obtain one?
What about cases where children's live are endangered when the parents refuse to contact a doctor because of religious beliefs? Sometimes the parents are taken to court.
Euthanasia comes to mind. There are laws against euthanasia, but should there be? Should an individual have the right to terminate his/her life when he/she wants to? Why should states legislate how a person dies?
You mention laws changing as society changes. Is this situational ethics? Or is it a matter of society realizing that earlier laws were not good laws.
As I ponder your missive, I think about American jurisprudence as it differs from that of other countries. I think about laws existing in one country but not another. Does this fact matter?
Arguing jurisprudence is a challenge. Keep working on it. Keep thinking!!
I commend your ability to look at all sides of the issue. And I am thrilled that you take a stand on your beliefs. My only question would be, what do you think of the abolishment of slavery? Of desegregation? Of the United States entrance to WWII?
These are all issues when the United States defended (and enforced) their moral beliefs on others because they thought it was the right thing to do. People were dying, and they felt it need to end. You say that you do not have the right to tell people that they their version of morality is right. Do you think that is the always the case? If not, where is the line of when it is OK to step it and when it is not?
to the teach:
As I read through your comment I recognized quite a few topics I had considered while writing my missive. The gaps left in my argument were primarily left there because I wasn't sure how to incorporate these other topics such as euthanasia without negating my entire argument. I think its safe to say that if abortion was illegal, and had been so for a majority of my life, I'd probably be less tolerant of it than I am now. We are often victims of our culture. During the '60s, desegregation was abhorred by many because segregation had for so long been the accepted norm. Similarly, if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't be as accepting of the law if it had been in existence my entire life. Using my argument from the blog, I technically should be opposed to laws prohibiting theft and murder because, who am I to enforce my own beliefs on those who perhaps find this behavior acceptable? The reason why I do not believe this is because I have grown up in a society which condemns such actions. While abortion is condemned to a degree, I grow up in a society which also(at least in some aspects) espouses tolerance. I struggle in arguing morality because there really is no way to definitively state what is wrong or right, for any assertion would be based upon my cultural upbringing. You mentioned laws that exist in one country and do not exist in another. This is a topic we have discussed in class, and I have always found it a difficult one. While I find the treatment of women in some countries despicable, this conviction is based upon my knowledge of the treatment of women in our society. How can I argue who is right without appearing to claim superiority? I truly struggle with this. Do you have any suggestions as to how to argue something of this nature?
to zizzi:
You and the teach present extremely valid points. Instances such as U.S entrance to WWII and the abolishment of slavery are examples of moral imposition that I don't think I could ever argue against. You asked "where is the line of when it is OK to step it and when it is not?" I think that it is nearly impossible to define a line as to when imposing one group's moral standards on another's is justified, for in doing so, you'd be determining the extremity of circumstances based upon the very moral standards you are attempting to restrict. From a practical standpoint, I would say that under circumstances where innocent lives are in danger(due to oppression and tyranny) must one group's moral standards interfere with another's. From a philosophical perspective, however, I would ask who determines what is tyranny? So, in other words, I have no definitive answers, only more questions. :)
To ms. h:
Thank you!
p.s. this was the nicest euphemism for "you can't make up your mind!" I've ever heard. Thank you for not tearing me apart!
Post a Comment