It is time for me to address the abortion debate. I will not apply religion in my argument. I will not even plainly say for what side I am arguing. If you stick with it, I can guarantee that you will be one step closer to the truth. First, I'll cover some basics.
If a woman becomes pregnant and waits around 9 months, she will give birth to a human child. Now, if that pregnancy is interrupted, either naturally or unnaturally, that clump of cells, embryo, unborn child, whatever you want to call it, that thing will die. Its bonds will break apart, and it will rot if not burned or preserved.
If the pregnancy process is naturally interrupted, then the process will have been ended forcefully, but not deliberately. If the pregnancy process is unnaturally interrupted, then the process will have been ended deliberately, and forcefully. Without any unnatural, or natural interference, that pregnancy will develop into a fully functioning human child. Can we agree on that?
Now begins the argument.
Take a vacation to Hawaii during a time when endangered turtles are growing in their eggs. Now crush one of those eggs under your foot. Can we agree that this would be the wrong thing to do? In crushing that egg, you will be fined and possibly jailed. After all, you did just crush the egg of an endangered turtle.
Is the total population of a species the only defining factor as to what makes the killing of unborn and underdeveloped offspring wrong? Turtles: endangered; killing the fertilized turtle egg is punishable, and some may dislike you for it. Humans: not endangered; killing the fertilized human egg is not punishable, but some may dislike you for it. Now bear with me. Abort an unborn turtle - unacceptable, bad. Abort an unborn human - acceptable, good.
Now hold on, it is possible that someone may believe that just because someone thinks that it is acceptable to abort the pregnancy, doesn't mean they think it is good. So, a person may think the idea of something as a whole is bad, but there are times when the occurrence is acceptable. A person must then realize that the very act of willingly doing something, even just in that instance, means that you've found that thing to which you are doing, to be acceptable in that specific instance. In effect, that was the good choice to make at the time.
Someone might say that they are against stealing. Now, this may be true with regards to something like a candy bar, or wallet, or car. But, as soon as something of a certain value can be stolen without consequence, that person may be much more inclined to take it. What also matters is who a person is stealing from.
When confronted with taking something from say, a billionaire. Most could probably agree that taking one thousand dollars would not affect that billionaire in any negative way. The person who takes that money might think that the billionaire already has enough, and that they need it more. This is most likely the truth. That billionaire really wouldn't be affected by that missing one thousand dollars, and the person who stole it probably does need it more. By that action, they have just set their acceptable limit for stealing.
Now apply that reasoning to a killing, or murder. What is the acceptable limit? What is less outrageous? More outrageous? Who's death is more or less acceptable? Evaluate the below questions, and decide.
Would the killing of a man that rapes both women and children be relieving, or devastating? Would the killing of an on-duty police officer be trivial, or outstanding? That officer did know the risks associated with the job. How about a soldier at war? They knew the risks, right? What about a draftee? Is their death more or less acceptable than the volunteer? What about a hospital nurse murdering 17 children in their cribs? Would that be troublesome to the mind? How about the wholesale slaughter of 15,000 baby cows for the meat industry? The crushing of an egg belonging to an endangered animal? Crushing the egg of a chicken? Killing a newborn because it is disabled?
Have you weighed and measured the morality of it all? Have you determined your acceptable limits, for what constitutes an acceptable death? Did you find yourself thinking that there just might be some gray area in certain choices, and not in others? Could you not decide on some? Do you realize that the "gray area" is simply ones own inability to choose? Do you realize that by not choosing you are allowing others and nature to make the choice for you?
Apply this determination to a single unborn human child. A human fetus. A human embryo. A fertilized human egg. Is this killing acceptable or unacceptable? Is it good, or is it bad? What is your limit for what constitutes an acceptable killing?
Choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment