The choice for women to undergo abortion must be upheld and protected through legislation. This is controversial and i fully expect some form of reaction from this post.
But before you go on to think i am going to start debating moral and ethics here , let me set the record straight.
NO!
I am not going to argue this based on philosophy and ethics.They are debatable with too many grey areas for my liking .
SO,
SO,
I am going to argue this from a simple matter:
Pregnancy can be life threatening. Period. Though the risk is minimal nowadays if you do give birth in a maternity ward , the point is, its still there:
Read this link if you're not convinced :
http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html
Ok , i do admit , i am making a cardinal error here. A good argument does not draw support from anecdotal evidence. However , when it does come down to an argument (based on the idea that loss of a single life when it could be prevented, is unacceptable) , then yes , anecdotal evidence is relevant.
Now, on with the post proper.
Obama is most likely going to legalize abortions when he comes into power. And quite obviously , the hippy pro-life movements in the US are up in arms over it , citing that "loss of a life so young when it could be prevented is unacceptable"
TRUE.
And there lies the gray area. Allow me to explain.
Questions regarding the morality of abortion is a heavily debated one. Its very ambiguous at best. From the POV of a pro-life , anti-abortion person , abortions = murder. From the POV of a person wanting an abortion , she (or he if a couple is involved) could cite various reasons amongst which are :
1) Rape
2) Teenage pregnancy
3) Not ready for a child (i will not discuss this further , too much ambiguity and grey areas)
I think now is the best time to drive home the main idea of this post:
I AM SUPPORTING THE RIGHT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO UNDERGO ABORTIONS. On the subject of abortions itself , i have no opinion. The reason being there are just too many grey and debatable areas and so many differing opinions and views one cannnot begin to comprehend without actually experiencing what the person giving those views has been through.
The reason i am taking this stand is. though i have no opinion on the touchy subject of abortions , i do fully understand that pregnancies can lead to a life threatening situation for the mother leaving 3 possible outcomes if the situation is left to faith.
1) Everything works out. Mom and baby are ok. Everyone gets a break.
2) A miscarriage, but mom lives.
3) Both mother and child die.
That being said, when you are fully aware there is a risk, shouldn't you logically make sure there is the means to somehow salvage something from the situation? An abortion to save the mother is a last resort. It has its own risks (mom gets killed possibly?) but it is a life saving option for the mother and that being said, it is an option the mother should not be barred from when death stares at her.
I am talking in a language everyone should understand. Freedom of choice. A core idea which gave birth to what we call a democracy. Wouldn't be ironic if a life is terminated by authoritarian laws in a nation which abhors them to begin with?
Cheers from the:
Matrix
Pregnancy can be life threatening. Period. Though the risk is minimal nowadays if you do give birth in a maternity ward , the point is, its still there:
Read this link if you're not convinced :
http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html
Ok , i do admit , i am making a cardinal error here. A good argument does not draw support from anecdotal evidence. However , when it does come down to an argument (based on the idea that loss of a single life when it could be prevented, is unacceptable) , then yes , anecdotal evidence is relevant.
Now, on with the post proper.
Obama is most likely going to legalize abortions when he comes into power. And quite obviously , the hippy pro-life movements in the US are up in arms over it , citing that "loss of a life so young when it could be prevented is unacceptable"
TRUE.
And there lies the gray area. Allow me to explain.
Questions regarding the morality of abortion is a heavily debated one. Its very ambiguous at best. From the POV of a pro-life , anti-abortion person , abortions = murder. From the POV of a person wanting an abortion , she (or he if a couple is involved) could cite various reasons amongst which are :
1) Rape
2) Teenage pregnancy
3) Not ready for a child (i will not discuss this further , too much ambiguity and grey areas)
I think now is the best time to drive home the main idea of this post:
I AM SUPPORTING THE RIGHT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO UNDERGO ABORTIONS. On the subject of abortions itself , i have no opinion. The reason being there are just too many grey and debatable areas and so many differing opinions and views one cannnot begin to comprehend without actually experiencing what the person giving those views has been through.
The reason i am taking this stand is. though i have no opinion on the touchy subject of abortions , i do fully understand that pregnancies can lead to a life threatening situation for the mother leaving 3 possible outcomes if the situation is left to faith.
1) Everything works out. Mom and baby are ok. Everyone gets a break.
2) A miscarriage, but mom lives.
3) Both mother and child die.
That being said, when you are fully aware there is a risk, shouldn't you logically make sure there is the means to somehow salvage something from the situation? An abortion to save the mother is a last resort. It has its own risks (mom gets killed possibly?) but it is a life saving option for the mother and that being said, it is an option the mother should not be barred from when death stares at her.
I am talking in a language everyone should understand. Freedom of choice. A core idea which gave birth to what we call a democracy. Wouldn't be ironic if a life is terminated by authoritarian laws in a nation which abhors them to begin with?
Cheers from the:
Matrix
|