This Pains Me
Abortion politics twist facts in fetal pain laws
You can never talk about abortion anymore without it being political. Making any issue political takes all rationalization out of it anyway. Pro-life people (in which many of them favor the death penalty so I am not really sure why we are calling them Pro-Life) will grasp at anything to prove that abortion is evil and it is hurting or killing innocent lives. On the other hand there is the Pro-Choice people (even though it takes two to have a child) who have made it a woman's right to choose issue. So really no one is actually talking about the really issues surrounding abortion.
The thing that pisses me off the most is the fact that peolple misrepresent science to prevent people from getting abortions. Like this article said:
Abortion politics continues to rip at the social fabric of America. That is a fact. When abortion politics are permitted to twist, obscure and ignore the facts about fetal development, fetal pain and the nature of informed consent in medicine that is a fact that those who are pro-life and pro-choice should not tolerate
When we start really talking about issues that affect abortion, and solve those issues, then I believe we would not have to talk about abortion ever again.
What a glorious day that would be.
posted by Jonathan @ 2:37 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
I don't know Jon--this seems to be an issue that will stand the test of time. Someone, somewhere, will always find "fault" with the way that someone "solves" the issue. And then more solutions will be proposed, and more people will find fault with them. The vicious cycle will only repeat itself. Eventually, it could get to the point where we forget what the original argument or issue (abortion) was. . .
That is my point. I do not think this will ever die! There is too much crap, and the crap will never end. I believe we have already lost the point of the argument.
Exactly, this reminds me of my ethics class. My professor always emphasized that when the fetus is technically human or when the fetus can feel pain doesn't matter in the arguement of abortion. Like you said, Jon, both sides are using science in the wrong way.
I think the reason it won't die is because people try to use science to argue a moral issue. For the vast majority abort or not is a moral choice that has NOTHING to do with science. But moral decisions have zero concrete evidence for a debate or to create laws/rules from. So both sides try to mold science the way they'd like, and it ends up getting garbled. Why chose 20 weeks? Why chose 21 years to start drinking? They wanted to make a line and they had to chose somewhere. Why chose 18 to vote, I know 16 year olds that could make a more informed decision at the ballot box than most 45 year olds. They can't win when they try an make a arbitrary line because well. . .it's arbitrary.
Condoms are the answer. If condoms were available almost everywhere and people used them correctly there would be very few unplanned fetuses. There would be very little need for abortions then.
I should start some sort of nonprofit organization to hire an airplane and drop thousands of condoms (with little parachutes) over large population areas.
That's a great idea, Cy--but only if you're willing to send armies on the ground after the plane drops to force people to actually wear the condoms.
And don't forget that the same people who think all abortion is immoral and should be illegal are also often people who think that birth control is immoral and that sex is only for procreation. These folks ignore human nature, yes. But these are their moral views.
And don't get me wrong: I think every abortion is a deeply sad event for the people involved, and would prefer that no one ever have one--I just don't think it should be illegal. But I don't have an answer that deals with both the practical and the moral aspects of this debate, because there is no such answer. As long as people insist on applying the standards by which they choose to live to the people around them--by writing them into law, or by bullying and threatening, or by doing something as simple as refusing to fill a prescription--this will remain a political issue rather than the deeply personal one it ought to be.
Personally, I sit on the fence. I would never have an abortion if I ever found myself in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy, but at the same time, I do believe that a woman should have choice and--most importantly--not be judged based on her decision. Science, technically, doesn't even enter the picture in my mind. However, I understand the fact that both sides are using science to try to gain an advantage against their opposition. I guess my question is--can there be a right or wrong way to use science in this argument? Merely applying the label "right" or "wrong" makes this more of a moral decision. So I guess, in the end, is that I kind of agree with Gerken. (Whoa. . .)
P.S.--It's "choose."
Oh you silly english major, can't help but korrect my eglish :)
I only said it because spelling errors just make your argument look weak.
No no no, having my NAME in front of my arguement makes it look weak! :) I was just joshin' ya.
Post a Comment
<< Home