The Silicon Mind

Find everything here. And maybe some stuff in between.

SM's Popular:
Antonio on Religion and Exclusivity.
Michael on Small Arms.
Contributors:
Antonio, Michael Belinsky, Mike Maio

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Abortion and Morals

John has the following interesting view on abortion:

Taking a comparative approach to abortion, I think it becomes obvious that the view that abortion is murder has implications that hardly any Pro-Lifer would be willing to accept. Millions of fetuses are aborted every year. If fetuses have a right to life, this would be a greater tragedy than the Holocaust. If they were consistent, Pro-Lifers would be much more outraged and be willing to take much more drastic measures than they currently do. Bombing of abortion clinics would be unquestionably justified. Of what value is a building compared to the value of millions of lives? I think it is obvious that any destruction of property is justifiable in order to prevent the violation of a right to life provided that property is not necessary to sustain other lives. Why is there such opposition from Pro-Lifers to bombing abortion clinics? Why do they distance themselves as much as possible from such "extremists?" I think the answer is clear: they don't really believe abortion is murder.
I don't think extremism is a viable solution to any problem. Even if the killing of Nazis who shipped people off to concentration camps is justified, such extremism is not as effective as the more subtle ways of protecting those people (see Oskar Schindler). On one hand, it's obvious that "abortion is murder" is simple a piece of rhetoric used by a the Republican propaganda machine. On the other hand, it's really easy to convince yourself of the truth of that statement and do nothing about it. Example: the tsunami killed thousands, yet relatively few Americans are rushing to help the victims. John ends his analysis with the following comment:
On a final note, one of my friends who is very much interested in politics tells me that if three particular supreme court justices were to be killed, Bush would be able to appoint enough Pro-Life Justices to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Kill three people; save millions. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

6 Comments:

Blogger Antonio said...

Mmmkay, see, that's kinda freaky...

6:41 PM  
Blogger Linda said...

WHOA, thats nuts. Its seems that now that we have let the abortion genie out of the bottle there is no way to stuff it back in. I really do believe abortion is murder. Seems that all we can do for now is put some reasonable restrictions on it. If we, as a nation, ever regain our humanity, then we will stop using this barbaric proceedure as birth control, then it would be the shame of killing the most innocent amoung us that would stop this barbarism.

7:04 PM  
Blogger Michael Belinsky said...

Well, even if abortion was murder, there are some cases in which its use is unarguably necessary. When a teenage girl is raped and impregnated, society should not further ruin her life by forcing her to have that baby.

1:39 AM  
Blogger Antonio said...

I would disagree that abortion is murder, but I don't think it's the solution about 99% of the time. There are plenty of other ways to handle problems that don't involve abortion.

Now as to we, as a nation, recovering our morals, puh-leeze. Last I checked Republicans were against big government. What is bigger government than a government that legislates morals as clearly divisive as abortion?

Before you say anything, yes, it's true that we legislate armed murder, but armed murder is generally considered a crime; abortion is nowhere near being generally considered a crime.

Point further, here. As a nation, do our morals permit for the unjustified invasion of Iraq, but not for abortion? Do our morals permit for completely self-centered thought in a global world, but not for abortion? Seriously, there are far larger problems for our morals than the question of abortion.

10:06 AM  
Blogger Linda said...

Michael, Really! That is such a straw man! It is extraordinarily rare and obviously not something you can base your entire abortion policy on. Rape and incest rarely result in pregnancy, when they do you can always make an exception. What we need is a CULTURE of Life. All of the exceptions are just that,exceptions. If as a society we value life, and realize how precious life is, and how it is important to take personal responsiblity, then the abhorent procedure would not be necessary. It certainly is not necessary after the first trimester.

11:21 AM  
Blogger Antonio said...

This IS a culture of Life, as you put it. Abortion is such a specific case because pregnancy is nowhere near being just about one life, it's about two of them. And understanding that should be the cornerstone of any view on abortion. I think if you started poking around looking for exceptions, you may just find far more cases in the exceptions category than in the rule category. And then that just defeats the purpose of the rule.

How would you decide between a mother and a child when the choice comes down to an abortion or death? And I mean after that first trimester.

2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home