The Trouble with Viability
We've all heard ardent defenders of choice claim to respect abortion for any reason... up to the point of viability. This sand drawn line is very telling of the abortive mindset. There are two facets of self preservation when it comes to abortion and viability neatly divides the two.
The first justification of abortion involves the invasion of bodily domain by the unwelcome unborn. The woman, pregnant by apparently miraculous means unbecoming of consent, is thus entitled to remove her progeny at will. Viability is given as a rational point of restriction because at this point the unwelcome unborn can theoretically survive apart from its "host" however unhealthily.
Of course, this dips into a realm of problem when we evaluate what such sentiments seem to imply. Are we to believe that a lack of a "good" option makes killing a moderate one? I can think of no other situation where a lack of escape from a self made situation justifies the killing of an innocent,abet inconvenient bystander. Moreover, I can think of no situation in which a window of opportunity disallows a "harmless" procedure; that where "good" comes, "neutral" is made to "immoral".
Trapped people do desperate things, but are we to allow a self made captive to destroy another simply to escape temporal bonds?
For the bonds of pregnancy are temporary. No one will deny this fact, least of all the "up to viability" folks. For how could they possibly claim abortion as a free pass from motherhood when arbitrary restrictions are placed well before the chains of motherhood are clasped?
The second facet of abortion justification is the "right" to be free from motherhood. This "right" it seems should extend til crowning. For I know of no circumstances in which hypothetical freedom from bodily intrusion simultaneously inflicts the bonds of parenthood. Birth excluded since it is established that this is the act so fought to avoid.
Opposing abortion after viability, but not before, makes little sense. It speaks more to personal morality than logic. This is fine, except that those who support abortion subvert moral thought. It is hard to support abortion when the aborted are capable of life outside the womb, but the situation of the mother is unchanged. To truly support the choice of women, one can take into account nothing of the child.
Though it may be horrifically appalling to the sensibilities to think of 23 week aborted fetus and a child of the same age fighting for life in an isolet, there is nothing logically different about aborting at 23 weeks or 7. If you find the former disturbing, perhaps it is time to examine closely your views of the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion.
My choice. His life. Which will you support?
The first justification of abortion involves the invasion of bodily domain by the unwelcome unborn. The woman, pregnant by apparently miraculous means unbecoming of consent, is thus entitled to remove her progeny at will. Viability is given as a rational point of restriction because at this point the unwelcome unborn can theoretically survive apart from its "host" however unhealthily.
Of course, this dips into a realm of problem when we evaluate what such sentiments seem to imply. Are we to believe that a lack of a "good" option makes killing a moderate one? I can think of no other situation where a lack of escape from a self made situation justifies the killing of an innocent,abet inconvenient bystander. Moreover, I can think of no situation in which a window of opportunity disallows a "harmless" procedure; that where "good" comes, "neutral" is made to "immoral".
Trapped people do desperate things, but are we to allow a self made captive to destroy another simply to escape temporal bonds?
For the bonds of pregnancy are temporary. No one will deny this fact, least of all the "up to viability" folks. For how could they possibly claim abortion as a free pass from motherhood when arbitrary restrictions are placed well before the chains of motherhood are clasped?
The second facet of abortion justification is the "right" to be free from motherhood. This "right" it seems should extend til crowning. For I know of no circumstances in which hypothetical freedom from bodily intrusion simultaneously inflicts the bonds of parenthood. Birth excluded since it is established that this is the act so fought to avoid.
Opposing abortion after viability, but not before, makes little sense. It speaks more to personal morality than logic. This is fine, except that those who support abortion subvert moral thought. It is hard to support abortion when the aborted are capable of life outside the womb, but the situation of the mother is unchanged. To truly support the choice of women, one can take into account nothing of the child.
Though it may be horrifically appalling to the sensibilities to think of 23 week aborted fetus and a child of the same age fighting for life in an isolet, there is nothing logically different about aborting at 23 weeks or 7. If you find the former disturbing, perhaps it is time to examine closely your views of the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion.
My choice. His life. Which will you support?
Posted by Lauren at
2:53 AM
1 Comments:
"[T]here is nothing logically different about aborting at 23 weeks or 7."
I have to say, I disagree. At 23 weeks, there is a slim possibility of the unborn human's survival if removed through other measures (like inducing pregnancy). At 7 weeks, there is no way -- at this point in time, someday I'm hoping for either fetal transplant or artificial wombs -- to remove the unborn human without resulting in its death.
I understand that you believe that the right to life of the unborn human trumps the right to bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. I feel differently.
Because I believe that everyone has the right to control their own bodies, I believe that a pregnant woman has the right to deny use of her body to an unborn human.
However, I feel that abortion should only be allowed up to viability because at that point the unborn human can be removed in ways that don't immediately result in its death. I feel the woman should still have the right to remove it, but that the unborn human should get the chance to survive outside of her body.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I do hope, however, that this might give you a bit more of an idea why some Pro-Choicers feel that abortion should only be legal until viability.
I hope I didn't offend you, or anyone else. That was not my intention, and I tried not to. However, if I did offend anyone, I am deeply sorry.
~AJ~
By
Anonymous, at 1:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home