POLITICS: A Discussion on Abortion I Was Involved In

Vanity Run Amok had an interesting post on abortion. You can click here if you want to read the whole thing. Below is some comments I posted on it.

My first comments:
I guess I'll have to speak for the other side.

But I'll say first that I think the two sides are unwilling to even look at the other side. I understand that abortion cannot be a simple choice and that the woman will think about her decision for the rest of her life.

But I am not comforting with deciding that only after birth does the fetus become a human being. A newborn baby is just as vulnerable as a fetus and cannot take care of itself.

I'm sorry but when another life is involved, things change. And I do think society needs to defend those who can't defend themselves.


My second comments:
Sorry, ran out of the time before I could finish.

The unwanted child is a sticky problem. But most children, even if the pregnancy was unwanted, are appreciated and loved. And there is adoption. Almost all babies are adopted.

Admittedly, this would probably make it more difficult more older children to be adopted. But I prefer this, than saying it's okay to kill something that can't survive on its own.


My third comments:
My viewpoint on the woman controlling her body is that a woman should be able to control as much as anyone else. But no one should be able to do something to their body that could harm anyone else. I don't think a siamese twin should able allow to kill its sibling to have a better life. That's the way I see the abortion issue, although I'm sure you two don't agree.

I DO question the moral values of people - men or women - who engage in activities that could endanger a fetus or a child - like smoking, or beating a pregnant woman. (Not that it's okay to beat to beat a woman who's not pregnant!)

On the adoption issue, I suppose that I'll just have to say I see adoption as better that having a society that draws a line on what is human and what is not in a spot where I don't think it should be. But there is no doubt that your points on adoption are valid.

I do agree with Eclectic, that the religious tone the argument takes does make it difficult to discuss. Being an agnostic who does not believe in The Bible, I don't base my view on something an old book says. But I don't see how we can "de-religionize" the argument. If that is part of their belief structure, we just can have to deal with it.

Not being a Bible follower, I don't feel right discussing how it should be interpreted, so you excuse me, Eclectic, if I leave that argument to others. But I will say everybody feels there is a point where society must step in - for instance, we now step in when children are beaten - we just agree where and when society should step in.

Finally, since I come from a secular viewpoint, I'd like to know how I'm being "subversive"? I, personally, prefer a secular argument, because religious people sometimes don't worry about listening to the other side points, because they "know" they're right.