Not always harmless
US political debate this week has been dominated by the confirmation of Supreme Court candidate Samuel Alito. And of course, underlying all this has been the abortion debate and the fear that if Alito were to sit on the Court he would work with other conservative justices to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion back in 1973.
My own views on the issue are very nuanced. I think that it is an ugly and unfortunate procedure and I am very thankful that I have never found myself or anyone I have been in a relationship with ever confronted with that choice. However, speaking in the broadest of terms, I do see it as a choice and for that reason I don't think it should be or ever will be made illegal. That being said, it's important that people know what kinds of psychological issues that are involved with the procedure and the damaging long-term effects it can sometimes have on one's mental health. See here for some eye-opening examples.
posted by Road Hammer @ 11:21 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I think your statement about your views on this issue being very nuanced is right on. I believe most people's views on this are indeed very nuanced, but that unfortunately this debate has long been dominated by extremists on both sides.
The whole truth is many-sided and full of ambiguities. It very difficult to reduce it to right and wrong.
Both parties should spend more energy trying to find the common ground i.e. preventing unwanted pregnancies.
I think the majority of people on both sides of this fence ultimately agree that casual or routine use of abortion as a backup for contraception is indefensible, and that unwanted pregnancies need to be reduced so less women have to make this choice.
Also, I would say that many would agree abortion is sometimes the best of a bunch of bad options; and that it would be better if women's other options were better so that abortion would not have to be chosen. It would be better to see less abortions chosen voluntarily -- not by making abortion even less desirable, or illegal, but by making the other alternative, i.e. having and rearing one's children more desirable.
I also think that pro-life advocates ought to promote effective birth control methods. Unfortunately we know this is not the case, and that people's access to birthcontrol and sex education is often hampered by groups with pro-life interests.
More energy should be spent in a common crusade against unwanted pregnancies, because no easy resolution of the abortion issue exists.
Hey Chiquita, thanks for chiming in. I agree with your "positive" prescriptions. What are your thoughts on the libertarian option - which is that abortions should be paid for by the person receiving it, so that people who are against it on moral grounds are not coerced by the state to support it through tax dollars? I think it's a bit too extreme and obviously wouldn't fly, but has some merit.
My own public policy proposal is this: One free taxpayer funded abortion. Anything above one, you pay. I know more than one individual who has had three or four abortions, in fact, all before the age of 20. I'm sure pro-choicers and pro-lifers could agree that using it as a form of birth control is not cool, but for different reasons.
I think that the libertarian proposal, as you say "wouldn't fly"! While it does have some merit, I would see certain provisions for the people for whom abortion may very well be a better option (i.e. rape & incest victims, severe congenital defects discovered in utero, etc) that would ensure their procedures are covered.
I guess you can boil this one down to taxpayers paying for the misfortunes in somes cases, or the irresponsibility in othe cases, of other citizens.
I assume american tax dollars also go to the government to maintain the corrections/penitentiary system, and those who do not support capital punishment (which is sanctioned in 36 states and by the federal gvt) are probably not given an "opt out" option on the grounds of their beliefs...
In Canada, where I live, capital punishment has been abolished, but your point is well-taken.
Indeed... I was framing my argument within a U.S. context... the situation vis-à-vis capital punishment is of course (thankfully) different here in Canada!
I frankly don't think that the the abortion issue will ever be put to bed until there exists a convincing, evidence-based and widely accepted argument that says that human life is to be "recognized" as such for human rights purposes, as of XX time following conception. That's a tall order... how do we determine what this elusive "date" is, and once/if we do, then the debate effectively becomes "fetus' human rights vs. women's human rights"... yikes! that's another toughie...
I agree, I'm totally, 100% anti-capital punishment. And I also think you're right ... abortion is here to stay, and so pro-life activists should focus their energies on providing alternatives to that harrowing choice, as you suggest in your original reply.
Post a Comment
<< Home