Posted by
The Tatman on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:40:41 PM
the most common argument for legal abortion in this country is the pro-choice view that it is a womans sole choice. are there other arguments besides choice? i have a few thoughts on choice.
1. i can choose do to anything. i can choose to rob a bank, or kick a dog, or steal retirement money from elderly widows. that doesnt make it right. choice is a standard of human thought, it can go either way. being able to choose does not make us anymore or less human. what makes us human is the ability to think beyond selfish animal instincts of survival, or hedonism, or selfish personal gain. why aspire to the lowest, most base human actions?
2. is choice an acceptable option when the question is fundamentally wrong to ask? science, religion, nature, and philosophy all set clear boundaries on the issue when you look at them objectably. so then is the argument of a womans choice basically an argument of choosing whether to accept basic fundamental truths or to reject them? if so the truth of the argument is that it is a choice of doing something that you know is wrong, yet you still want to do it.
3. a continuation of the choice argument is that the choice can only be made by the woman because it is her body. but, break this argument into three smaller arguments and lets look at them;
a: the argument that a woman solely has choice because it involves her body alone is a misnomer. by biological virtue a woman must become pregnant by enlisting the aid of a male counterpart and receiving his physical contribution, his sperm. this both nullifies the argument that its only a womans body, and at the same begins the precident of the need for other people to have the ability to weigh in on the issue.
b: a fetus is made of a female egg and a male sperm, this divies the right of choice between the female and male who have contributed genetic material to the developing fetus. But wait, science tells us that at the time that of conception the male and female genes fuse together and begin cell division, from this point and on there is a third person involved in the decision making process, it is the baby who has not been born yet.
c: as a society we have determined that those who can not defend themselves or are otherwise unable to defend themselves should have the benefit of defense in the form of an advocate; a person or persons who can articulate their inherent human rights of the individual in question. in this case that individual is a human fetus. throughout history this role has been represented by many different peoples and groups, but can be summerized in short order as philosophers, theologians, scientists, and medical personnel. they argue their case to society in the form of a government. it is the government in the united states that ultimately gives creedance to either parties argument. it is the legal grounds that gives pro-choice advocates the right to obtain legal abortion, and forces pro-life advocates to accept the ruling. if the pro-choice supporters can accept the intervention of society in its various forms when it falls on their side they have given the role of society to intervene full and complete validity, and nullified the argument that individuals who arent directly involved in the pregnancy dont have a choice in the matter.
4: the last facet of the choice argument is that an outside individual or group has no right to impose their moral, ethical, or otherwise dissenting views on a person who is making personal choices. i have gone to great lengths to prove that this is patently false and dispel the myth that presumably there is no moral justification for another person to weigh in on the choices a woman makes in regards to her own body. as i have already outlined in my third point argument abortion is not a decision that can be horded by the pro-choice woman. other people have tangible rights to play a part in the decision, when it is convienent the pro-choice advocate uses those people and their arguments to strengthen their case. when a person uses the arguments of other parties such as previously listed philosophers, theologians, scientists, doctors, and government officials they create a very simple model; the issue becomes the fulcrum that balances two opposing arguments composed of moral, ethical, emotional, and factual arguments. when the balance tips in favor of one argument over the other you by definition have one sides choice being imposed on the other. it is a law of physics, and when the physical model is transfered to intellectual debate it remains true. when you look at the landscape of our current political and cultural enviroment what you see it that in fact it is the pro-choice side of the argument that pushes their moral, ethical, and otherwise dissenting views onto the opposing side. this is in complete opposition to the stated claims of the pro-choice rhetoric.
this not only nullifies the argument that it is somehow wrong to attempt to push a moral or ethical agenda onto another, but it strengthens the overall stance that the pro-life argument of a womans right to choose abortion unequivocally independent of societies approval is untrue.