Abortion: Your body, your choice? Or is it the child's body that you are choosing for?
A fetus is just a lump of human cells, with the appearance of some primordial fish creature.
But does the lump of cells lack a survival instinct? The truth is that even individual bacteria cells, and perhaps even viruses, have some sort of "Must survive. Must make more of myself" instinct, however simple.
The genetic codes that are key to life, which exist in all life, make it clear, that unless the fetus is inherently suicidal, it will strive to survive. It will do what it can to live, from the time it's inside you, all the way until it's out of you, and has become an elderly human. This is the way of life. Evolution has not yielded creatures that strive to die. Life does all it can to live.
Does life's struggle to survive justify being pro-life?
As I said before, perhaps it is inherently suicidal. It is connected to the mother, is it not? If the mother considers this part of her body, and the mother says "It is ok for this part of me to die", then that should make it completely ok. But you still cannot deny that the child will eventually separate, and perhaps have a different opinion on whether or not it gets "amputated".
So then if the child would say "Don't kill me", does that make it murder? Certainly killing, at least.
But we kill every day without worry. We kill germs when we wash our hands, we kill more when we cook food, and of course, there is also the entire holocaust-esque enslavement of farm animals, and how we raise them as slaves, only to be slaughtered en-masse and become our food. If we can justify that, we can certainly justify abortion.
However, even if that alone does not justify abortion, then the existence of war does.
Yes, there are many who would say "War is a necessary evil". If you can say it in plain english, that phrase is "Killing people is sometimes ok." It is logically necessary to then think that abortions are sometimes ok as well.
Because governments are the masters of the citizens and soldiers, and they choose when war takes place, I would say that mothers are the masters of their body and their offspring, and they get to choose when abortion takes place.
We are not all vegan hippies, so allowing abortion, even if you think of it as unpleasant, might just be another necessary evil.
But is it even evil?
It's not exactly a secret that women have about two million eggs in them, from birth. Even having a period every month, we don't have any shortage of eggs. None at all. They are plentiful, and without end. And men? They have regenerating sperm. No limit at all either.
So in that case, we know that even if a woman does get an abortion, she can still have another child later in life.
There is no reason for anxiety regarding how precious life is, if our bodies are naturally able to have more children than we will ever be able to have.
But why would a person even want an abortion? Most likely, it's because they just don't want to have a kid, or they don't want a kid with the genetic code that they do. Maybe she got raped. Rapist DNA isn't something I want to have combine with my egg. I want to ensure that my child's DNA is extremely ideal. An intelligent, strong and courageous father is what I want my child to have.
I want to choose ideal genetics for my children. I want to choose which genes get passed on. That is the secret to evolution. I want an ideal mate.
This is the way of evolution. I will choose the future of the species on a small level, but to me, it's important. I won't allow myself to give birth to a baby that has the genes of a person who chose to be a rapist. That's just how it is, and most people should agree. There are plenty of deserving men who have excellent genetics and would make a much better father, and because I'm limited in how many children I can have in my life, I will make sure the children I produce have genetic qualities that I truly admire.
Of course, what if it's not rape? What if I'm just not ready, be it emotionally, intellectually, professionally, or financially?
You'd have to be mad to think I should have a child when I'm dirt-poor. I, and many other women, are on the path to success, as far as careers go. I won't end my budding career just for a child. It's more wise to wait until my life is well established, and then I will have my children. I will be able to truly care for them and show them more love if I can choose the time of their existence.
If I did end my career because of a child, I'd end up having to get two jobs or something, and it'd take time away from me taking care of my kids. Yes, I will end up failing to raise my kids properly, because I'll be too busy with other jobs. If I have a kid, I want only one career to worry about, and I want to make sure I'm in good with the company I work for, so I can have flexible hours, so that I can make sure my kid is raised in a happy, healthy and intellectually stimulating manner.
I want kids that make the future a better place. Not half-rapist, lonely kids who don't have a mother in their life, or if they do, a depressed mother who was forced to give up on her dreams. Kids shouldn't be exposed to the concept of "giving up on their dreams" until much later in life, don't you agree?
Abortion is nothing more than giving yourself time to develop your own self better, so the child you finally do have is healthy, smart, happy and taken care of by parents who will be happy to raise the child, rather than feel forced to raise the child, just because the state is pointing a gun at their head, forbidding abortion.
Well, I feel a bit flip-flopped now. I had started this essay to condemn abortion, but after an honest, logical analysis, it seems that society as it is should favor the freedom to have abortions. Do you agree? Disagree? Tell me your thoughts in the comments.
I did try to stay away from traditional feminist arguments, and I also stayed far from religious arguments.
I wanted to focus on science and logic here, as well as unbiased arguments that our society uses to excuse other acts of killing. Tell me your opinions please!
~Kitten
Hello @heretickitten,
Your post has been chosen by the @robinhoodwhale initiative as one of our top picks today.
Learn more about the Robinhood Whale here!
The Steemit community looks forward to more great stuff from you. So, please keep on Steeming!
Goodluck!
~RHW~
The extreme cases (rape etc) are usually a very small % of actual pregnancies and the burden is upon you and your spouse, bf, random one-night stand partner etc etc of being mature enough to think before acting even when/during sex.
The only way I see it, is if your not willing to have kids don't have unprotected sex. It's immature and irresponsible IMHO.
If you are too irresponsible and immature to have safe sex, could it be that you're also too irresponsible and immature to take care of a child?
How does that make the act of killing the child justifiable?
If another person surgically attatches themselves to you are you not allowed to remove them?
The fetus doesn't surgically attach itself to the mother. Assuming it arises from a consensual act, the mother's actions have brought the child into being in this state of dependence. A more accurate parallel would be whether or not an adoptive mother would be justified in killing her infant after she agreed to take care of it. Unless both parties are completely and truly ignorant of the fact that vaginal intercourse without contraception leads to the conception of a child, both parties are aware that one of the consequences of sexual intercourse - indeed, the primary purpose of it - is the creation of a child, both parties assume the risk involved, the same way a woman adopting an infant is aware of the burden such an infant will place on her before agreeing to adopt. If it's wrong in the second case, it's wrong in the first as well.
That alone does not, but this issue is not one-dimensional.
I listed other justifications for killing the fetus in the article. Perhaps they would persuade you if you would consider them.
I responded to them at length in my first-tier responses lower down. I was addressing this point in particular, here.
There are unlimited justifications for killing a person whether before or after birth. That is why when someone commits murder he is entitled to a trial by jury of peers. Each case should be judged on an individual basis, not lumped together as in: What you seem to be saying is "Sometimes murder is justified, so let's just make it legal for everyone, under every circumstance." How's that sound? Like a plan?
@anarcho-andrei
As an "anarcho" you should understand that no thing, any, thing, can rule over another. A child acts much like a parasite to the host. It will and can kill the mothr to survive. This is what the biology of this life dictates.
Now put aside your ethics and look at it from the mother's perspective. seeing it from the "oh no, the child is so innocent" doesn't really cut it
People can, and do, incur positive obligations all the time. As I've said elsewhere, if the child poses a risk of harm to the mother, then the mother is justified in using whatever means necessary to preserve her life. Barring this instance, though, killing another human being - which a fetus undoubtedly is - is not moral or justifiable.
Its not a child, it's a fetus.
It's an developing, unique human being. Newborn and fetus are both different developmental stages of the same thing: a unique human individual.
If we're talking about a human fetus, then yes, the fetus is a child. Furthermore a person - entitled to equal protection of the laws according to the 14th to the US Constitution.
I guess so.
Have you heard of freakonomics? In the book, the author shows, with the data, the effects that legalized abortion had on the crime rate. It was a pretty interesting argument for abortion. I can't think of a good argument for it myself, but it's easier as a man. There are certain situations I don't have to deal with.
that was actually the best example for the book. no future delinquents were born :)
I'm not aware of too many crticisms of Freakonomics and its generally well regarded, but this particular claim has not stood up to scrutiny. Heres some reading if youre interested:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.600.6558
https://uncertaintyblog.com/2013/08/15/fooled-again-pinker-puts-a-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-freakonomics-crime-theory/comment-page-1/
http://www.economist.com/node/5246700
@heretickitten
The kid's life depends on the host(mother) therefore the child cannot dictate anything. Really is that simple.
The mother was the one that placed the child in this state of dependence. Does she have no moral responsibility for ensuring the child's safety, since her actions (assuming it was not actually rape but consensual sex) were responsible for the child's dependence on the mother?
"I want to choose ideal genetics for my children. I want to choose which genes get passed on. That is the secret to evolution. I want an ideal mate.
This is the way of evolution. I will choose the future of the species on a small level, but to me, it's important. I won't allow myself to give birth to a baby that has the genes of a person who chose to be a rapist. "
This argument to justify abortion fascinates me. The following is a sincere question, since yours does seem to match up with their way of thinking: Are you a nazi? Do you think that what they did was good?
I don't know anyone who would choose to be raped. (Obviously, because then it wouldn't be rape.) Obviously it is preferable to choose a mate and father to your child. But does being raped justify killing an innocent person (who has never raped anyone) because he MIGHT do the same some day? Do you think being a rapist is a genetic trait? Honestly?
You seem to have your crimes confused. The rapist is the criminal, the child is not. Do you believe in putting punishment BEFORE the crime?
As for me, I would approve of the death penalty for the rapist -- not for the child.
For me it's hard to comment on the subject without considering religion. I agree there are some cases where abortion may be okay like in the case of rape or if the pregnancy endangers both the child and the mother. But, life is life. We shouldn't end a life just because it is an inconvenience to us. Good article.
Aye, but everyone has a different religion.
When it comes to law, we need to consider logic, science and the idea of protecting the freedoms of the individual.
If your religion forbids abortion, then you need to follow your philosophies.
Let your beliefs guide your life. Not the lives of others.
The reason this argument doesnt work is because pro-life people believe the fetus is an entity of its own and that abortion is interferring with its life. To them, your argument supports the opposite conclusion to your own and demonstrates why abortion is wrong since its allowing one person to decide the life of another.
Do you think we should abolish laws against murder, rape, battety, etc? Afterall, our beliefs should guide our own lives, not the lives of others, right? Nobody actually believes we should mind our own business when someone defenseless is being harmed, so this argument is only valid if you dont think the fetus is an entity of its own, in which case it changes nothing since people who believe this are likely in favor of abortion already.
In my opinion, if we consider religion before anything we're already on the losing side.
I read about this woman in a muslim country who was forced to keep the rapist kid! Forced to marry the rapist!! And spent some time in jail for having sex with a man she was not married with [ the rapist].
That's religion for you...yeah, you can say that YOUR religion is better but you must agree that's a slippery slope of an argument.
I would say this would have been more of a cultural thing that Religion - 2 different things alltogether. Culture is often confused with the practice of the muslim relegion ( I am not muslim) the culture is all about shame being brought on to the family . I am not advocating this is right, but you have to understand its not the religion thats making her stay with a rapist, but the culture she would have been raised in.
Governments are not masters of their citizens; this presupposes some greater claim over the body of individuals than the individuals have, which is patently untrue and can be demonstrated by the fact that people will die rather than submit to tyranny. No one has a greater claim on your body than you do. By using that as a comparison for the mother and baby, your justification on those grounds falls flat. Government, like war, is not a necessary evil.
Your other arguments about wanting the best career and best life you can for yourself, which will thus translate to the best life possible for your child if you decide to have one, also falls flat on its face. Your personal convenience and aspirations are not justification enough for ending human life.
While you do make a case for comparing human life to animals at the slaughter, this cannot possibly be taken as an argument in favor of abortion if the act you're describing is cruel and immoral. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize, but that seemed to be the tone of the argument. If that's the case, why would you advocate expanding cruel and immoral acts to unborn children as well?
The only argument that you presented which carries some weight to it is this notion that "killing people is sometimes okay." This is absolutely true; if someone initiates physical violence against someone, it is moral for that person or any other person to defend against it, up to and including the use of lethal force. At best, though, this is an argument for abortion strictly in situations where the fetus' continued development poses a severe risk of irreparable harm to the mother, including death.
I want to address the rape argument separately, as this is a very loaded discussion. Yes, rape is perhaps second only to murder on the scale of worst violations of bodily control. Anyone who's denying this is either lying, or is a sociopath. However, if a child results from the act, is the child responsible for it? Was it somehow an accessory to it after the fact? The child isn't initiating violence against the mother, however it does place an unwanted burden on the mother in terms of sapping nutrients away and creating tremendous physical changes within her body. This is one I have difficulty with. Ultimately, I err on the side of life in favor of protecting the fetus, but it's not nearly as clear as I want it to be.
None of my rebuttals, however, are arguments in favor of laws banning abortion. I don't recognize the legitimacy or authority of states, so don't take my counterarguments as supporting legislation; it's not. They are, however, arguments on whether or not abortion is moral or immoral. Like all acts of killing, there are precious few instances where any moral justification can be found for it.
The reason you don't get many responses is that your arguments can't be contested. This is the point where usually the name-calling starts. Either silence, or ad-hominem...
Sure it is, since person is a completely arbitrary, socially contextual term.
A person's life begins when the sperm of a male person fuses with the ovum of a female person. Not a moment before nor after.
Terrible picture/argument since the vast majority of pro lifers believe life begins at conception and none of those examples are showing anything analogous to that.
Furthermore, their position does not hinge on whether or not it's considered a "person" since person is a legal construct and they disagree with the current definition - just as people disagreed with the definition of person when it excluded black people and women - or how some disagree with the current legal standard for person which includes corporations and excludes dolphins, elephants, primates and other intelligent animals which many countries are now on the verge of classifying as non-human persons.
It is an immensely complicated topic. You could argue both sides of the coin forever. The thought of killing a life turns my stomach, but when I see the effects on unwanted children, that is equally as distressing. That is why I am pro-choice. It is a choice every woman will have to make for themselves. I doubt I could do it, but that does not give me the right to judge someone who would.
The argument boils down to whether the act is moral or immoral. Since abortion is an act of killing a human being, with forethought, the same principle should be applied as is applied to determining whether any other act of killing is moral or immoral. If you're arguing for this case to be treated differently than others, it's special pleading; none of the circumstances specific to abortion change the fundamental nature of the act.
A VERY valid argument.