The left claims that a womans right to control her reproductive abilities(with abortion) is an inherent individual right that no other individual or society can take from her. Yet the left is also at the forefront of claiming that an individuals rights are secondary to the greater good of society as a whole as exhibited in progressive and socialized government programs, such as, but not limited to, health care, welfare, etc. I find that contrast to be perplexing.
First of all, as someone who supports the right for women to have an abortion, I don't consider it a from of birth control, and I don't know any one who does. It should only be used in cases of rape, incest, or for medical reasons (such as a potential stillborn fetus or severe birth defect). It is first and foremost a medical procedure for saving/improving lives and should be treated as such. Any chance to save or improve the life of someone who's already alive is more important to me than a potential life.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you're making a big straw-man, “progressive and socialized government programs, such as, but not limited to health care, welfare, etc (what's the etc?)” have nothing to do with “an individual's rights [being] secondary to the greater good of society.” Those programs have nothing to do with limiting anyone's rights. That's simply your opinion and not the intention of those programs. Yes, those programs exist for the betterment of society as a whole. Am I to assume you care only about individuals and not society? How is trying to better society a bad thing? Would your rather people go poor or have no access to medical care? Or should we rely entirely on privately held organizations to provide for us who are obligated to either make money or push their own agenda on the people the say they serve? The idea of government is for the benefit of those who live within that government's rule: Of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.
First, this was not a complete thought, just something that was rattling in my brain. So let me try to illuminate my point a bit more.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your statement about it being a medical procedure to save lives. If the vast majority, and I mean VAST, were simply life saving procedures, then I would understand your point. But the facts to do not bear that out in any form what-so-ever. Abortion is overwhelmingly used as a form of birth control. Especially when we are talking about the extremely deplorable practice of late term abortions. The instances of actual "life saving" use, are so rare it makes that argument for abortion look absolutely ludicrous.
My point about progressive policies is not that they are inherently "bad", but that it seems to be strange that we cannot protect the life of an unborn child, yet we can force people to take care of other people through taxation. If we would recognize that even if I have to force you to give me(govt) money for the sake of others, then why shouldn't I be able to not allow someone to destroy a life due to "inconvenience".
I do absolutely believe in bettering society, and with that in mind, an individual needs to be protected from other individuals. Also, we have a responsibility to our fellow man to help them when we can.
A similar issue pertaining to this: Pro-Abortion Vegans. Immoral to kill a chicken, but not immoral to stick a needle in the head of a baby in the birth canal!
You can't disagree with the fact that it is used in order to save lives. It is a viable life saving/improving procedure and I see no reason to take that tool away from doctors. Isn't condemning someone to not be able to receive a low risk medical procedure no better than aborting a fetus? According to one study (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf) roughly 7% of the women who had abortions had them for health related reasons. I wouldn't call that an insignificant number of people. I wouldn't call the possibility of saving ANY woman's life insignificant. If a love one could possibly die due to complications of a pregnancy, I wouldn't hesitate to do whatever was necessary to save her life. It's a very clear, easy decision to make. I'd like to see the actual statistics for the reasons behind late term abortions. According to the CDC 5% occur after 16 weeks, but they don't give reasons. But again, even if a low percentage of them are to save lives, why damn those women to die if they could be saved?
ReplyDeleteI think there's also a good argument in that people will always try to have abortions, you can't stop that. They will try to do them at home or under bad conditions and this is incredibly dangerous. I'm not saying that's right, but again, you're putting people at risk or killing or injuring themselves.
I don't think people really make the decision lightly either, I'd suggest you read and watch this: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/148607/what_happened_when_i_yelled_back_at_the_%22christians%22_calling_my_wife_a_murderer/?page=1
I have friends who are adopted and who have siblings who have put up children for adoption at early age. I think that is an infinitely better option. If you look at a bigger picture what about people who can't afford proper medical care during pregnancy? Or people struggling to make a living and the possibility that they won't be able to take care of themselves if they're pregnant even if they would put up their child for adoption? Or why not broaden laws to include mandatory nutrition and behavior for pregnant women to give their child the best chance possible? I can't judge what people are capable of or mentally prepared for as far as pregnancy or having a child, only they can.
And again, those programs are about giving people access to things they might not otherwise have. I would much rather give up some of my own money if it means a fellow citizen won't starve or die from a minor medical condition. We are a society, there are many individuals but we still make up a collective group. I believe the lowest of us is a reflection on everyone. If one person is starving, that's one too many. And as I said before, I'd rather have the government who, ideally, has no ulterior motives or agendas (such as indoctrination or profit).
In the end, I suppose I care far more about a life already being lived than a potential unborn life. That's the problem I have, why are conservatives obsessed with people before they're born and as they're dieing?
I'm no vegan and I have no idea why that's relevant to this discussion.