Let's have the abortion talk here. Right here. This thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a bleeding heart liberal with one big asterisk. I’m anti-abortion. I really want to side on the women’s rights side of the fence but just can’t intellectually make the leap. I’ve reflected on this my entire adult life and have concluded there are two absolutes when it comes to life. When the cells are dividing and when they aren’t. Everything in between is a shade of grey.

I wish I could join my feminist sisters in the “my body, my choice” mantra. But to intellectually justify abortion is to say that my rights over my body are more important than human life itself. That is an ends justifying the means conclusion.

To think otherwise you would have to conclude with certainty that life begins after conception. If so, when? Convince me.
Or, you would have to conclude that our own individual right to our bodies is truly more important than another human life’s right to exist. If so, on what philosophical grounds?

Wow, even though I disagree with you, I really like how you’ve thought this out. It’s nice to see someone put true effort in figuring out their personal ethics.

On the other side of that, though, I don’t see the value of life in absolutes. We make decisions daily as a society (and individually) regarding whether one person’s life is more valuable than another’s. When we choose not to resuscitate a terminally-ill relative, for example. Or when we sentence a criminal to death. Or when someone attacks us, we immediately say our life is worth more than the assailant’s, and we are willing to kill if it means saving our own life. We say our child’s life is more valuable than the assailant’s. And God forbid this happen to anyone, but if you were the parent of one of the kids in that horrific Mexico day care center fire, wouldn’t you search for your own child first to save? To you, your child’s life is more valuable than another child’s life.

Life, also, can mean unimaginable pain for someone. Like someone born with a grave birth defect. Or a fetus’ life can mean death for the mother. Some mothers are willing to die for their unborn child, but some aren’t. Perhaps they have other kids at home that depend on them. Perhaps they just want to live themselves.

Since these awful situations exist, it’s imperative that abortion always be an option.

VERY well said pp.

[Anonymous]

PP here. You are right, sometimes those shades of grey are pretty horrific. In many of your examples we are talking about when one's own life is at risk. Then yes, under extreme situations in defense of one's own life the taking of another human life can be justified. In those circumstances we have laws that make legal an otherwise illegal act. I can justify abortion as legal and legitimate in these extremes, for the same reason I can conclude that lethal self defense is justified.

But we’re talking about defending in all circumstances an individual’s right to conclude when it's justified. To me, that would be the same as the gun lobby saying that everyone should not only have the right to own a gun, but also to make their own conclusions as to when it's justified in using it.

Abortion as a legal option should be rare and given more gravitas then even an amputation. If I cannot argue that my pinky finger is going to prove too burdensome to my future as a justification for amputation then why do we permit that line of thought in the pro-choice debate? I’d be much more sympathetic to the cause if as a result I wasn’t also guilty by association in supporting abortion in the other extreme. As a means of relieving the burden of poor choices.

I am anti-death penalty because I believe that life without parole is another viable option. I view abortion similarly. There are some terrible and heart wrenching circumstances when a woman has no other option, not even unpopular ones. Otherwise though, I don’t believe the choice should be ours. I suppose with this view I am at least consistently still non-pro-choice.