Friday, March 27, 2009


So, to stick with social issues, why not stick my... hand ... into the moral bear-trap that is abortion?

As usual, I have pretty much no use for any of the standard arguments from either side. In just about every case, they are not real reasons, they are just that, arguments. A real reason applies to more than just one issue. And neither side is inclined to apply "choice" or "life" to any other issue. The abortion 'issue' is barely even about abortion any more. It is about 'women's rights' on the one hand and 'traditional values' on the other. All the talk is just noise, as far as I am concerned.

So I will start from scratch.

The notion that life begins at conception has no justification that I can see. The notion that life begins at birth is just as unsupportable. And nobody that I know of supports the notion that there is any definable point in between where one tick of the clock, it's just a collection of cells with no rights, the next tick it is a baby and killing it would be murder. We could go with viability, but that creates a weird system where the definition of a human being changes with advancements in medical science. So, this isn't really getting me anywhere.

If there was an overwhelming agreement amongst the people as to when life began, we could go with that. Many laws are based on that alone. Public nudity, for example. But there is no agreement. Thus the whole argument. So this does not help much either.

I could, I suppose turn to religion, but since I am non-religious to an extent that is hard to overstate, no help there.

Personal liberty is the only argument left. One of my most core beliefs is that personal liberty is a default state - that is, it needs no reason. Rather, it may only be limited where a compelling reason exists to do so. Since I can find no such reason, I can only view this as the final word.

Those who oppose abortion are best served by addressing the reasons for abortion, rather than the act itself. Not only is this morally superior in my eyes, it is just flat out more likely to work.


Time March 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM  

Choice (and I'm not just talking about abortion) is the base of a free society.

If I choose something that disgusts my fellow citizens, that is their problem, but my right to live my life as I choose.

The "do no harm to others" concept is to protect others from my actions and protect me from their actions.

If I am not harming others, then how can the law say I cannot proceed in my actions?

Once the government bans or makes illegal any action, that eliminates choice and diminishes freedom.

The debate comes down to whether or not an action is harmful to another person, or the public at large.

If my choice is insulting to another persons beliefs (moral or otherwise) that does not and should not constitute a "harm" justifiable enough to legally stop me or others from, rightfully, following their own path in life.

The important issue to me, is to keep as many choices as possible for me to decide, not for my government to decide for me.

OpenMindedRepublican March 27, 2009 at 12:26 PM  


I have had this idea floating about in the back of my head all morning. I am thinking that personal freedom is not a right, it is the right, from which all others are derived.

It needs a bit more consideration and polishing, but there may be a post there someday.

Pamela D. Hart March 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM  

Time said:
The debate comes down to whether or not an action is harmful to another person, or the public at large.

Time: fetus = person. So, using your statement above, is an abortion an action that is harmful to a fetus? I think we all know that it is; because abortion leads to killing the fetus, hence killing a person, which is harmful. Again this particular situation isn't cut and dried.

OpenMindedRepublican March 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM  

Pamela - "fetus = person"

But there is no scientifc basis for that position. A (slight)
majority of people in America would disagree with you.

So it comes down to your beliefs. And while I will respect your beliefs and defend your right to live your life by them, I cannot support any attempt to make others live by them.

Time March 28, 2009 at 12:21 AM  


Your statement is straight from the heart, but I cannot respond better than OMR just did.

TAO March 28, 2009 at 3:15 AM  

Abortion is a very complicated issue that has been simplified by most people to 'life' versus 'choice.'

If we look at it government has gotten very heavy handed in limiting our choices. We have teachers and doctors acting as parents supervisors in regards to children and every state has a child services agency.

We have guidelines for food, vaccines, and a host of other things that are well meaning but now have become routine and in turn limiting choices.

We are actaully way beyond the 'do no harm' and have automated and regulated so much of our existence.

Truthfully, how much of the argument of 'choice' is actually related to the concept of women' sexual equality? How much of the argument of abortion is realistically related to the idea that with pregnancy a woman is burdened with birth where a man is not? How much of the argument of choice is actually an artifical way to allow women to have worry free sex like a man?

Then you have the issue of 'life.'

Is a fetus a life form? It might be and surely is. But is that enough to measure up to 'living.'

A tumor lives, grows and develops inside our bodies to...but can it live grow and develop outside our bodies?

Then of course we must deal with the concept of 'life' especially in the age of dementia, altzheimers, and coma patients.

Has medicine created ways of keeping our bodies functioning while we are technically dead?

We have made great strides in medicine but have they actually improved our lives as much as they have prolonged our lives?

Its a much more complex issue than just a dicussion of life versus choice.

I can still remember a morning in 1996 when it was obvious that my father was going to die that day and rushing to the hospital to have to deal with the 'choice' of keeping him alive artificially or letting him die naturally but comfortably.

While my father had let everyone know what his choice was THAT did nothing at all to make it an easy decision one iota.

Was he conscious that day? Was he living? Was he aware? Did he or would he have changed his mind that last day if he could have?

I think we could solve the abortion issue if we could find a way to recreate the emotional state one is in when faced with that decision long before one is faced with that decision.

TRUTH 101 March 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM  

It would be nice to view things in black and white only. Each situation is different. Who am I to tell a pregnant woman and those close to her what is moral and appropriate. How can we make a law that would cover all circumstances. Rape? Incest? Health of mother and child? We all agree abortion as a means of birth control is not right. But in the end, it's up to the person's own concience. I would allow her to mind her own business.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP