Monday, December 06, 2004

Third Article on Abortion

Unfortunately too many arguments against abortion have religious undertones. I am looking for a nonreligious reason to be against abortion. I could never have an abortion, I just feel that it would be too much for me to abort a baby, but I do not think it should be illegal for practical purposes.

This issue is so personal and not everyone even views the fetus as a baby. I understand this because the no one has been born. My belief is that the government should stay out of science. I'll leave it up to the medical community to decide whether or not abortion is seriously the threat to life that many religious people perceive it to be. (note: I am not trying to knock religious people, I just need some room to breathe the supposed separation between church and state)

But seriously, if I hear one more person say that the 'times are changing' argument is a copout I'm going to pull out my hair. Times ARE changing and the world will never be what it was yesterday. A lot of things suck in life and rape and birth defects and unwanted babies are part of our world. I guess if abortion is made illegal I sure hope that the Republicans who did this will give back their tax refunds to support the orphanages and foster homes and women's shelters so that the babies they fought so hard to protect can live a good life.

Andrea Goldman

5 Comments:

Blogger Samantha said...

Is it all right for me to comment since I had my opinion published? If not, press delete!

Anyway, rape and incest are no excuse for abortion. Just because the circumstances surrounding conception are unpleasant does not make abortion right. Furthermore, it is a very, very small minority of abortions that are performed for this reason.

As far as a non-religious reason to oppose abortion, I gave it in my piece. Any honest physician knows and can testify that the unborn baby is NOT part of the mother's body.

What is right and wrong does not change, which is why the "Times Are-a-Changing" arguement does not hold water. How many people are aware that in the original Hippocratic oath the physicain swore not to help a woman procure an abortion? That has conveniently been removed from today's oath. What has changed is not the fact of the baby's right to life, but the perspective of women and men on children.

I also wonder how many people are aware that it is religious (ie CHRISTIAN) people who have been the originators of the whole idea of orphanages and other charitable organizations to help those in need?

12/07/2004 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger Andrea said...

I definitely wasn't aware the the Hippocratic oath used to ban abortions. Interesting... also I didn't know that churches started orphanages but I guess it makes sense. I wouldn't mind if abortion was illegal if there was a good place for the kids. For now, I stick with my side which is that it should remain legal.

12/07/2004 06:00:00 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

The original Hippocratic oath also pledged allegiance to the "Gods and Goddesses". Perhaps the notion of Christianity is what has really become the modern reinterpretation.

Is this a good argument for being a pagan? If not, why is it a good argument (or at least one you're willing to make) against abortion?

Also with regard to orphanages. Those are hardly a good reason to outlaw abortions. Orphanages all too often live up to their reputations as having children living in horrible conditions with very nearly no adult supervision. The orphanages that still exist in Brazil have lead to thousands upon thousands of drug abusing homeless teenagers and adults. Their lives are generally painful and short. If there were no abortions, there would be far more children than parents willing to adopt them or foster families to take them in. We would quickly find ourselves in the same position as Brazil. And with no hope of health care, no family to nuture them, and no one willing to take them in, the orphans in the US would not have any better lives than orphans anywhere else.

12/08/2004 01:16:00 AM  
Blogger Craig R. Harmon said...

"Is this a good argument for being a pagan? If not, why is it a good argument (or at least one you're willing to make) against abortion?"

Because it is an argument that actually bears upon the question at hand. Until relatively recently, procuring or providing abortifacients has not only been illegal but, in terms of the medical profession, fallen under the rubric of "First, do no harm..." Whether you view this reversal as a good or a bad thing, it clearly does bear upon our question and does so, in my opinion, in the sense that the commenter invoked it.

Whether religion, Pagan or Christian, has bearing upon our question is another matter. If one is stating that the basis for one's position is, at least in part, derived from one's faith, then it is pertinant to our discussion. What is not pertinant is using religious dogma as a legal argument for limiting or eliminating abortions, or anything else, for that matter.

As to the state of child welfare in this or any other country, I have to agree that it is little short of abysmal and is not an encouragement to the elimination of abortions.

12/08/2004 06:04:00 AM  
Blogger Andrea said...

On a side note, I apologize for the bad grammar and also for the rant at the end of my essay. I wrote it fast and didn't go back to edit, which in hindsight could probably affect the point of my argument. With that being said, I look forward to more views. I agree with Craig how interesting it is that all three essays are written by women. And yes, I find it even more fascinating that none of us took a hard line either way, especially because people who respond to these opportunities typically have strong opinions. I realize that three people will not decide this issue, but I wonder how many secretly identify with those they are supposed to disagree with. What are we to do when most people are confused and there are no clear answers?

12/08/2004 10:00:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home