I think the abortion issue will continue to be a contentious one for many years to come because it involves the rights of two human beings and not just one. Personally, I think the best approach is to select a cutoff and say that women cannot have abortions after that time unless a medical doctor states that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, in which case the family should be left to decide how to handle it. We have a very diverse country and to make it all one way or all another isn't likely to ever happen. Adoption should also be made easier. My wife and I have adopted two children and I can tell you that it is like pulling teeth......and you better have a pretty nice nest egg saved up before you start the process. Let's make it easier for people who have the desire to adopt to undergo background checks, etc. and match them with expecting mothers who do not wish to raise the child themselves. As an incentive to the birth mother, let's incentivize taking this route over abortion by paying for her first two years of college as long as she is maintaining a decent average. Let's face it, the vast majority of abortions happen to low income families. If we can save a child and help the birth mother get out of poverty by getting an education and, more so, keep them off the welfare doles then it is a win-win situation.
This idea sounds nice, but it avoids a fundamental question: Does the mother's right to not have a child trump a child's right to life or not? If we put these functions in place to make adoption easier and keeping the child easier for the mother and so on, and yet she pursues an abortion, should it be allowed? I hear appeals like this sometimes, and always somewhere in the footnote is the disclaimer: (but abortion will largely still be legal).
No it addresses the question A. There is always a balance required when weighing whose rights trump anothers. This can be an individual vs another or vs government. What NC proposed is that in early stages of pregnancy the woman should be able to have abortions with some ease. As the pregnancy progresses the baby's right become greater until they outweigh the mother's in most cases. No system is perfect but needs to be flexible enough to accomodate the great majority of situations. If you insist on perfection you will never get it. In fact the insistance on perfection in the law is an enemy of a successful society. That is not to say each individual shouldn't try for perfection, they should.
What I dont understand is with all the FREE protection and pills out there, how are these women still having babies they want to abort?
That all sounds very reasonable until you breakdown to what we are allowing by letting mother's choose. We are letting mother's choose to have their children killed. And we are letting them choose to do this based on some arbitrary philosophical concept called "personhood." As with any philosophical concept personhood can be moved. The elderly, the mentally retarded, and infants are not considered persons by some. The fact that many do not beleive fetal human beings are persons does not make them right. What we have is a system that discriminates against individuals based on their place in the developmental cycle. It is a system that says there is no inherent value to human life, and it is ok to kill humans that are not persons based on"X." The giant problem is that X can be redefined. X can be too Jewish or too tan or too short or not Roman enough. And the slope is very slippery. There have been many genocides in our short history.
I understand, appreciate and respect your passion on this subject Supa. That said, to stray too far in the other direction places us on a slippery slope as well. In a society that is tolerant and respectful of those who have a different opinion, the very best we can do is to draw such reasonable conclusions to try and respect the rights of both the mother and the child.
this is well-said, Winston. each of us should indeed pursue our idea of perfection, but the real perfection is in the balance that is created from our collective tugging toward our own direction
You are playing a game here. The health of the mother is cited as the reason for abortion in less than 1% of abortions, and in those 1% only fraction are life threatening conditions that cannot be treated via other means, and even in those conditions abortion is very rarely the life saving treatment. Instead what we have done is created a free for all where we allow women to kill babies, and fostered a culture that does not recognize basic science because it is not in line with a a selfish narrative.
the answer to that fundamental question is neither's rights trump the others; that is the stickiness of the issue. trying to argue that one's life is more or less valuable than the others is a pursuit for ideological purists, but for the sake of this issue, I believe we should create a point in the pregnancy in which the rights of the child trump the mother's wishes and abortion is no longer an option. This isn't perfect. I am not a doctor or scientist so there are people far more qualified than myself to determine what this cutoff point should be and what exceptions will apply. Like I said, it will not be perfect but better than what we have now.
No, I do not play games with things this serious. Quite the contrary. In fact, I am offering a cerebral solution to a problem that for too many has become an emotional one. I do not dispute your facts that less than 1% of abortions are performed because of life threatening issues. This should mean that the exceptions to the rule would be few and far between. What I propose is far from a free for all and, in fact, would be represent a considerable step in the direction toward your side of the argument. I don't care where you stand politically on this issue, when you hear about the Kermit Gosnells of this world it is sickening. We can stop those kind of stories by finding a common sense solution.
