Miyako (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gokugirl) wrote,@ 2009-02-22 14:24:00 |
|
Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life
I recently made the mistake of reading an article about the pro-life forum in the school newspaper. I should have known that it was sponsored by a religious group (the campus Catholic club) and also should have known that their argument would be the same thing they always use. Religious people lack creativity (and logic).
In sum: a fetus is human, albeit a very young human, so it is wrong to abort it.
As far as I know, pro-choice supporters are not arguing against the fetus being human. It was created by a human ovum and a human sperm so, therefore, it must be human. They are, technically, not even arguing against the fetus having a chance at life. As soon as it is conceived it is alive so it has already had its chance. What they are arguing for is a woman's right to make a decision about what happens to her body.
What I argue for goes a little beyond that. A fetus is unable to live independently of its host (its mother's body) so, by definition, it is a parasite. You could never call a parasite a person. Therefore, a fetus is not a person.
You could also go on to say that a fetus is not a person because it does not have a consciousness. Since an infant still does not have a consciousness for a short while after he/she is born, but can now live independently of its host, the definition of "person" gains a subpart to include this.
Interestingly enough, I agree with many of the abortion alternatives that the Right to Life (RTL) people come up with. If people would be intelligent enough to use contraceptives then there would not be many abortion decisions in the first place. Of course, you can not totally prevent conception through rape, but rape victims become the same as the "sinners" who were careless in the eyes of fundamentalists. They also ignore the fact that no contraceptive is 100%. Improbable does not equal impossible.
What I do not agree with is the "abstinence" concept. Humans are, first and foremost, animals who are usually governed by their hormones. When you promote abstinence you take the focus away from "safe sex" and place it on "no sex at all." If given the opportunity, a human with a regular level of hormones is probably going to have sex. Being a firm supporter of abstinence is not practical.
I wish I could see more pro-choice billboards (any at all). The RTL people have them everywhere, sometimes across the street from each other, which is ridiculous. Having them across from medical clinics that help women is not ethical. Of course, they would never admit that they are shoving their message down people's throats. Religious people always believe that they are saints and everyone who does not agree with them are sinners doomed to the "everlasting fires of Hell."
I'm reminded of an episode of the L-Word when Kit went to an abortion clinic after an accidental pregnancy. She already had a twenty-something son so I can understand not wanting another child so late in her life. It turned out to be a fake abortion clinic where the people try to get you to change your mind through scare tactics (mainly photos of mutilated fetuses). The "scare tactic method" was also featured in an episode of Weeds. I love how Showtime tells the truth about the craziness of the world (or, at least, the United States part of the world).
I recently made the mistake of reading an article about the pro-life forum in the school newspaper. I should have known that it was sponsored by a religious group (the campus Catholic club) and also should have known that their argument would be the same thing they always use. Religious people lack creativity (and logic).
In sum: a fetus is human, albeit a very young human, so it is wrong to abort it.
As far as I know, pro-choice supporters are not arguing against the fetus being human. It was created by a human ovum and a human sperm so, therefore, it must be human. They are, technically, not even arguing against the fetus having a chance at life. As soon as it is conceived it is alive so it has already had its chance. What they are arguing for is a woman's right to make a decision about what happens to her body.
What I argue for goes a little beyond that. A fetus is unable to live independently of its host (its mother's body) so, by definition, it is a parasite. You could never call a parasite a person. Therefore, a fetus is not a person.
You could also go on to say that a fetus is not a person because it does not have a consciousness. Since an infant still does not have a consciousness for a short while after he/she is born, but can now live independently of its host, the definition of "person" gains a subpart to include this.
Interestingly enough, I agree with many of the abortion alternatives that the Right to Life (RTL) people come up with. If people would be intelligent enough to use contraceptives then there would not be many abortion decisions in the first place. Of course, you can not totally prevent conception through rape, but rape victims become the same as the "sinners" who were careless in the eyes of fundamentalists. They also ignore the fact that no contraceptive is 100%. Improbable does not equal impossible.
What I do not agree with is the "abstinence" concept. Humans are, first and foremost, animals who are usually governed by their hormones. When you promote abstinence you take the focus away from "safe sex" and place it on "no sex at all." If given the opportunity, a human with a regular level of hormones is probably going to have sex. Being a firm supporter of abstinence is not practical.
I wish I could see more pro-choice billboards (any at all). The RTL people have them everywhere, sometimes across the street from each other, which is ridiculous. Having them across from medical clinics that help women is not ethical. Of course, they would never admit that they are shoving their message down people's throats. Religious people always believe that they are saints and everyone who does not agree with them are sinners doomed to the "everlasting fires of Hell."
I'm reminded of an episode of the L-Word when Kit went to an abortion clinic after an accidental pregnancy. She already had a twenty-something son so I can understand not wanting another child so late in her life. It turned out to be a fake abortion clinic where the people try to get you to change your mind through scare tactics (mainly photos of mutilated fetuses). The "scare tactic method" was also featured in an episode of Weeds. I love how Showtime tells the truth about the craziness of the world (or, at least, the United States part of the world).
