I have had a lot of differing opinions on the subject of abortion. When I was younger I was pro-choice, since I was raised in a christian home. I figured that if the bible thought that masturbation was wrong than it probably didn’t think too highly of abortion. As I began to develop a sense of logic and started to evaluate these issues for myself I decided to learn a little bit more about what the debate was over.
Most most people the polarizing issue is over where to draw the line, between life and death. For some the baby in not baby until it born, where for others the child is entitled to it’s life at conception. There are legitimate arguments on both side of this spectrum, and in fact there and good arguments at many points between the two extremes. Some say the its when the heart begins to beat, or when the fetus is recognizable, or when the nervous system is developed. The current legal line is the point at which the fetus is viable, that is to say when the fetus is developed enough to be birthed or surgically removed.
So the argument becomes a matter of timing. At which point does the fetus stop being a part of its mother’s body and become it’s own individual, and by extension when can the state step in a protect the infants rights? It’s not an easy question to answer and it’s important to the freedom of this nation that the debate continue to be heatedly fought over, because it’s within that debate that you find your own personal morality and for the argument to end would mean a consensus be made. The only problem with finding an agreement is that on such a huge scale it is never a perfect one, there will always be a minority that feels oppressed by the decision that was made.
When I reached college I started to form my own opinions on this issue and came to the following conclusion. While it may be wrong for an individual to terminate a pregnancy, killing their unborn child, it was not the place of the government to dictate this moral choice to the public. And from a christian perspective, would it not defeat the purpose of living a righteous life if you were forced to do so under penalty of the state. Talk to anyone of faith in general terms and they will tell you that the driving force for living a holy life is not just a fear of damnation but a love for God and the scripture.
Another argument of the pro-life faction of this debate is that in killing all of these unborn children, you could be killing the next Einstein, or the next Pope, that it interferes with God’s master plans. But I have a real problem with this line of logic and a number of levels, first of all that it is contradictory to their own dogma. Essentially what they are saying is that God is almighty and has design a plan for all of humanity down to the individual level, after all that is the basis for faith, that trust that God has set you on a path and that he will protect you. But if this is true would his plan not account for abortion, would he have seen it coming and made provisions? Anyways this is not my biggest issue with the argument.
My biggest disagreement with the argument is with the fact that the premise is just wrong. Imagine for a moment that you a young women, you get pregnant, but you are too young, you are too poor and you are not ready for the responsibility of raising a child. You know have a choice to make, and you can choose one of three options. You can have the child, abort the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption.
The first option available to you is to give the baby up for adoption, this is the solution that the Pro-choice representatives would convince you is the solution to the problem. The only catch is that the world is made up of human beings who are flawed and emotional and irrational and generally imperfect. So that many who choose adoption change there mind and can’t bear the guilt of ‘abandoning’ their child. And those who do follow through, their lives are still turned upside down, and some never recover from the event. And even if the pregnancy does you undue harm and the parent is eventually able to go on to live a normal life, there is a woeful lack of families willing to adopt those ‘abandoned’ children.
You can also have the baby anyways and do your best to do right by the child. A noble sentiment to be sure, but how responsible a choice is it to make? Just because you and a true intention does not mean you have the ability, skill, resources, or support that is require to raise a person that can be a productive citizen. Many of the children that are born into a situation where abortion was considered don’t end up going on to become nobel laureates. Most of them struggle through school, due to an unstable home life and many are lucky to even make enough to start a family of there own, and more still never reach that place and still start those families anyway, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and in most cases uneducation.
Abortion is the only option which provides a solution to an unprepared youth a second chance, to make better decision for their life. It also prevents the cycle of struggle from continuing. But most of all it is simply an option. An option that is medically possible and therefore ought to be available for anyone who deems it the right choice. To make any one of these option mandatory would be wrong and I don’t think anyone could debate that fact. Mandatory adoption, mandatory abortion, mandatory pregnancy? Anyone with any amount sense could tell that any of these option would be monstrous, which is why it is equally monstrous to outlaw any one of them.
And that’s my take on abortion.