Openeyes, that's a good point, about medical science making the life of a fetus at 2 weeks as strong as at 24. I guess that first of all, I'm not so sure that it's possible to make a fetus at 2 weeks have that much of a survival rate. I'm not qualified in any way to speak confidently on that, but it's a natural process and it doesn't mean that anything is "wrong" with the mother, and that something needs to fixed.
But being pushed in that direction, I think what it comes down to--for me--is that I'm more concerned about the realistic and social situation of abortion than the idealistically moral situation of it. That is, when it comes down to it, if everyone who had an abortion this year DIDN'T have one, there would be a lot of unhappy people walking the planet, and we'd also have 46 million MORE people, many of whom would also be unhappy because they were unwanted. It would also mean a LOT more single mother homes, because let's face it, a lot of the fathers would back out of the situation whether or not that is morally ideal. It would also mean that anyone who didn't want to have children would be wagged the finger at for having sex at all, and that's just way to intrusive and repressive.
When it comes down to it, for me, I believe it is more important for the people here already living to be able to have the choice to live out the best life for them. Period.
It also just seems incredibly sexist. I'm sorry, but the fathers can and do walk out on children all the time; a woman doesn't have that choice. Even if she gives the baby up for adoption, a world without abortion forces her to go through 9 months of HELL (yes, pregnancy is hell if you don't want the child) and then labor to get to the same point the father would.
Megan, I don't think it cheapens life at all; I think it puts high value on life, because it means the children we have are chosen to be had, rather than just haphazardly created all over the place.
|