It is, at the most basic level, wrong.
The basis on which abortion-at-will is legalized is the premise that life has no objective value but is only a subjective individual judgment. Thus, the state has no standing to step in to protect the child as it is not a standard to which the law can recur.
That is also, by the way, why the limitation on abortions - beyond the standard rape, incest and life of the mother exception - has been shifting. Originally, abortion after the the third trimester was not permitted. Then, as technology has identified more characteristics of human life at earlier stages of gestational development, the standard has begun to shift to viability, i. e., that moment when the child can live independent of the mother.
Of course, science has moved viability itself to earlier and earlier stages of development. Thus, the line is vague and the law is turning handstands trying to avoid defining the moment when life can be held to exist as an objective scientific - and therefore presumably moral - and legal standard.
Which is also why states like Alabama keep writing tougher abortion laws that prima facie fly in the face of the pro-choice agenda. They are trying to force the courts to define when life begins and thereby force the issue to the Supreme Court and in turn thereby force its outlawing except in extremis.
All of these legal/political questions aside, the broad societal indifference to abortion is because the culture - coming out of the Enlightenment - have made natural rights the defining characteristic of the human animal. In that context, the "right to life" has been juxtaposed to the "right to choose" and there is no objective standard to resolve that question.
So the law - and the culture more broadly - has basically thrown up its hands and periodically tried to offer some arbitrary standard - i. e. third trimester or viability - but in general is saying, in effect, "We can't decide, so you decide."
The problem of course that it then reduces the culture to an ethic of power. The individual with the power gets to decide and the other side is either denied its rights because it cannot articulate and defend them, or simply has its very humanity defined away. This then begging the question that if it is not life, when does it become life and what is the objective defining difference one second before that moment and one moment after.
We shape our laws and then our laws shape us. The original Roe v. Wade ruling was both a product of its times and has since reinforced the ethic of those times. The law increasingly, it was believed, and still is to a great degree, should withdraw from moral questions, neglecting that, as Burke said, "The true principles of politics are those of morality enlarged."
That is why the contemporary political debate is so shrill - particularly as relates to abortion. The nation is engaged in a moral argument but is unaware of it. Thus principles clash without any underlying understanding of the pedigree of the ideas and the moral standards that underpin them.
Consequently, abortion is not seen as a moral issue for a large segment of the population because the emphasis is on rights, and thereby by default autonomy and thus power. The humanity of the unborn child is therefore never considered or is deemed a subjective judgment in which society, through the law, can have no say.
Suffice to say, historically, that line of reasoning has some bad historical precedents. Once the definition of life becomes subjective, it becomes arbitrary and subject to other secondary considerations. Not good, but there it is.
Most Helpful Opinions
I think every situation is different. If it potentially means the mother’s life than I could see why it would be necessary. But if it’s simply because she isn’t ready to be a mother, no. If a man was screwing around w multiple women, got one of them pregnant but wasn’t ready to be a father, most women would tell him to suck it up. Get ready to pay child support. You pay you play. But when it comes to women, a lot of women tend to make excuses. Again depending on the situation I could see why it would be necessary.
I don't believe abortion is wrong, however I wouldn't exactly agree that it is right. Abortion is a medical procedure that every person with a uterus should have access to, but abortion should not be a service that is abused by people who continuously do not practice safe sex. There are so many reasons that a person may wish to get an abortion, so I do not think it's fair for people to say "if it came from rape then it's okay, but otherwise it is wrong". I personally have no plans of having children ever in my lifetime, and so if I decided that abortion was the best thing for me to do, then I will do it. I don't think I would be a fit mother, nor do I think I should be forced to birth the child knowing this of myself.
right in 99% of scenarios.
wrong if used instead of birth control.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
20Opinion
let me ask you this. is popcorn an abortion? technically you're exploding a viable seed.
i think men don't need women to procreate and that men are the only ones that have any say in abortion rights. until he plants it in a woman
but a lot of men and women are infertile. and we have the technology to know when a baby is going to be stunted. i think it's humane to terminate at that point.
rape and incest are also issues. where do you cross that line? there was a case where a doctor impregnated several women with his semen in vitro without their knowledge. should they have been aborted?
It depends on the circumstances, for instance abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest or risk to mothers health, but not as a form of contraception or for disabilities like Downs Syndrome and correctable conditions like spina bifida, cleft lip, palate and club foot.
In the UK women abort for correctable conditions, and abortion because of disability is one of the most abhorrent things in modern society. It shows the hypocrisy with modern people's equality myth.
Life is filled with uncertainty.
People need to have options.
Abortion has got to be one of those options.- Detective Robert Goren
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Season 1, Episode 11 "The Third Horseman"Talk to your doctor about the options you have.
my only grip is not compatible with life abortions. These are wanting blushing mothers getting bad news on development. The want fetuse is not viable with life.
Details matter. Is it a medical emergency or is this the 8th abortion and a person is using a medical procedure as birth control.
There are some topics that are not black and white, right or wrong. Abortion is one of those topics.
Sometimes, abortion is the right thing to do, sometimes it isn't.
the extreme right wants it banned, no exception.
the extreme left wants it legal, no exceptions
I want to see it legal for the first 24 weeks, then after that only in cases of medical necessity to save the mother or the fetus is deformed or won't be able to survive after birth.
I see nothing wrong with doing what’s you think is necessary for yourself and the situation you’re in.
It’s not that simple of an issue. People who minimize it to that are ignorant and/or irrationally emotional.
You can't do much worse in life than kill your own children.
It is wrong. In a lot of cases it is murder.
the only reason abortion is somewhat ok is if the mothers life depends on it, otherwise no
Of course it's wrong. You're ending a life. This should NEVER be a easy decision. This should ALWAYS be an absolute last resort option.
Not just abortion. Corruption in government is also wrong. They call it lobbying.
Amoral. Not a moral issue. Bodily autonomy is total.
To me it is immoral but I don't think that banning it is the solution.
It's only the girl that's awesome and that is carrying
Wrong, but i do not have the right to force my beliefs on others, so i believe in choice
Democrats want to kill babies.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions