This opinion piece claims to exposit the argument that abortion is morally acceptable. Does it accomplish it’s goal?
:rotfl: Let’s see:
The author is apparently aware that pro-choicers are considered shifty but doesn’t understand that this might have something to do with their habit of calling the child “prospective” and “potential”. The author also sets up a ludicrous false dichotomy by saying judges who oppose abortion on demand are simply unable to see women as having potential. “Education for women” is laid down as the alternative to abortion. That’s actually a total non sequitur. Colleges have day cares, which are mostly big and full, because many students are mothers. That’s what student family housing is for, as well. High schools also have day cares now. Education is utterly unconnected to abortion even if abstinence were unattainble, which most of us don’t find it to be. I’ve known many pregnant, nursing and successful low-income students. The author also keeps alluding to some “moral” aspect to supporting abortion but never names this mysterious morality except to try helplessly to tie it to autonomy for women, which it isn’t related to at all, and then to drop that line and go on the defensive against the many thousands of women who have gone public about the damage abortion has done them. I guess no matter how many of us come forward, it will never add up to a significant number to someone determined not to look at us.:rolleyes:
“Abortion is about the value of women’s lives.”
This is the last line of the article. I think that it speaks for itself…teachccd
As near as I can tell the only argument that abortion is a moral choice comes form the part, “, Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that the only proper decision-maker in such a crucial matter was the mother.” He says that it’s not “—not their husbands, their doctors, or their legislatures.” This argument is based on the supremacy of personal freedom, even over the freedom of other life.
I agree that just because “Women bear the overwhelming majority of child-rearing responsibility in this society. Yet barely more than half of the moderate centrists would allow them to decide whether to abort” is not a conclusive argument. If mothers bear the majority of responsibility for a young child, should they be allowed infanticide?
Of course, “—even in face of a physical or mental defect in the prospective child” is just one person’s judgment on the value of another’s life.
The argument, “Women, whose economic prospects plummet with the birth of a child, now face 65 percent majorities who would support criminalizing their decision to abort because they are too poor for parenthood” seems to indicate that life is only valuable if it doesn’t impact your economic status.
This line is the kicker, “Guttmacher Institute abortion numbers reveal that these same poor women are disproportionately black and Hispanic.” So, the old injustices finally come out.
In general the article seems scattered and confusing. At best it is preaching to those already convinced that abortion is acceptable. It fails to come close to a convincing argument that abortion is a moral choice.
The article falls flat on its face because it’s based on several obvious false premises:
Sex is a right.
False. Sex is a privilege.
Sex is a need.
False. Sex is optional and many very happy, long-lived virgins exist.
Childbearing automatically means childrearing.
False. Childbearing can precede this or adoption, including individually designed open-adoption plans, including getting the child back after an agreed number of years, or weekend visitation, whatever works best for all concerned.
Pregnancy and childrearing rule out education.
False. My mother was in college when I was a kid and many mothers are students.
Education is a prerequisite to a life with potential.
False. The potential of anyone’s life can never be estimated regardless of formal education. Some grade-school-educated people have done wonderful things, and lived rewarding lives.
A person’s value is measured in how one specific other person feels on first acquaintance (pregnancy).
False. A person’s value is infinite and no one but God defines it.
7.* A person’s value is nonexistent if the person is or even might be disabled.*
False. The disabled are also infinitely valuable persons with immeasureable potential.
8.* A child unborn is a kind of proposal for a living human being, an order form or blueprint for one, rather than an already existent person.*
False. Unborn babies respond to stimuli, have brain waves and have functioning vital organs long before viability and many months befroe birth, sometimes even before the mother knows she is pregnant.
Children are sad news that crush women and make them unable to go on living, and thus are unfair.
False. Children are full of life and love and imagination and can really lift your spirits if you make room for them.
10.* The women who report post-abortive syndrome were found only after a lengthy hunt by zealous religious types and then pressed for a statement that they regretted aborting.*
False. When sites appeared inviting women to share how abortion had harmed their bodies and left them depressed and feeling exploited and horrified (more than mere regret), the posts poured in and still do. No pressure. We seek these spaces out because we are crying from our hearts for the truth to be known.
Liberals are all alike and everyone who wants to help the downtrodden must back abortion under all circumstances.
False. Liberal, like conservative, is a general grouping of ideas few people share completely. Most who call themseves liberal are for gentleness, equality and kindness to the weak. These values support sparing the tiny unborn, not killing them.
well, firstly, there is no such thing as a safe abortion. abortions can cause much damage to the mother like causing her to have ectopic pregnancies (should she decide to have children later on), be barren, cause inflammation of the cervix (very common) and pelvic inflammitory disease (can cause damage to your pelvis),difficulty in future pregnancies, premature birth, increased chance of having a miscarriage, and other things. not to mention that it damages your soul and heart. i read once that in order to have an abortion you have to have an abortion of the heart first. how sad!
on to the matter of the article, no it didnt do whatever it was supposed to do. i agree with what everyone else said.
It would seem that, if they wanted to be intellectually honest, abortion supporters and politicians should encourage abortion and not seek to make it rare. If abortion is a moral choice (as they put it) then why seek to make that moral choice less common…unless, of course, it’s not moral.
I suspect the Democratic party will never start proclaiming, “We need more abortion in the US,” even though some of them may privately feel this to be true. They know that most Americans would reject this immediately as, well, evil.
It doesn’t even try. It assumes that abortion is morally acceptable and exhorts prochoice folks to assert this without qualification or hesitation. But it doesn’t even try to deal with the basic moral question–the status of the fetus.
This is the same writer who argued that women who stay home to take care of their children are essentially behaving immorally. Her conception of what is “moral” is very strange.
I didn’t know that the Democrats had dropped the “rare” language. That’s dreadful. Just when they have a chance of winning over folks who care about morality and are put off by some of the immoral views championed by many Republicans (such as the idea that waterboarding is not really “torture”), they go out of their way to spit in the face of anyone who has even the faintest moral qualms about abortion.
Here’s the 2008 platform language. Nothing about rare.
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
And to translate that, it’s: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally support pretending women have the right to obtain a legal abortion and think it’s safe until the damage is done, funded by money extorted by bureaucrats from the unwilling majority, and we oppose any and all attempts to protect women or infants from the anti-nature, anti-life agenda that began with 20th-Century eugenecists.
Well, at least they’re being honest.
References to political parties is strictly prohibited on this forum.
I do not believe the article attempt to argue that Abortion is somehow morally good. Instead it tries to argue “morality is irrelevant.”
Change “fetus” and “birth” to “Jew” and the logic would apply equally to a medium-sized European country in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Change those words to “Chinese” and the same logic was used to justify the behavior of the Japanese during their occupation of China from 1935 - 1945. (The Japanese are believed to have killed between 2 and 6 times the number of (20 to 60+ million) Chinese as the number of people Germans killed in concentrations camps. The Japanese were not meticulous record keepers the Germans were.)