View Single Post
Old August 21st, 2013 (6:41 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
  • Crystal Tier
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 5,922
I really don't like the idea of abortion. It does sound like ctrl-z to me. And while some things deserve to be undone, hell, people used to live with accidents for hundreds of years. I feel that the "suffering child" argument should be qualified with the thought that we're discussing this issue in the setting of a Western country - so suffering horribly is not quite "suffering horribly" as you might imagine. Many brilliant people come out of working class families, and many people don't - that's a fact of life, but being raised by a single mom with three jobs wouldn't fall under my definition of suffering. And that's not to say that the father is exempt from responsibility, either. A possible acid test for me would be to ask if the parent(s) is/are suffering - then the baby will surely suffer (homeless, whatnot). I'm just suspicious of how far the suffering argument goes in my books. I also feel that it is pre-emptive to say a child will have a life of suffering and to call it a risk. Sometimes the hard life is the meaningful one. Life is complex and calling a hard life "suffering" is a bit one-dimensional in my opinion (where would my hip hop music be without a life of suffering haha). It's a bit rich coming from me, but it still sounds valid in my head.

That being said, my moral beliefs are my own. Technology is a thing, and if people are able to do whatever they want to do then they will do it. People abort because they can, and because without societal barriers, in the sense of material resources it is the easy way out. If you look at the world mechanistically, there is no reason that women should not abort. It is also the easy way out at the state level. Western countries need a highly skilled workforce that is the product of many years of intense education and care. Without that we would have an increasing pool of unskilled, obsolete labour that would probably end up contributing to crime and unrest. A workforce has to be competitive, and we cannot have surplus, low-quality workers dragging us down. And so the state that permits abortions and makes them relatively accessible has decided that abortions are a net benefit to society and there would then be no reason for the state not to permit abortions.

This is all I have to bring to the discussion at the moment, but my primary critique is still directed at this talk of "suffering". The fact that a child should be aborted because it is "unwanted" speaks to me chock full of individualism. To emphasize, I think there is a huge problem that an abortion should occur because the child is unwanted. That because at some point in time a potential child is declared "unwanted", this should condemn its life to rejection from its own mother. For a virtuous first reaction would be embracing this child, not rejecting it.

But why embracing? The first thing I can say is that an utter rejection on the grounds of calling it "unwanted" is surely not a virtuous act. So is embracing an "unwanted" child consequently the more virtuous action or is it possibly even worse? Embracing a fellow human being is generally a virtuous act, I think we can all agree on that - unless what follows is that said human being ends up in a trash dump or rotting in the gutter. So from this short interjection, it makes sense to me that rejecting an unborn child out of its "unwantedness" is not the right thing to do.

But what significance does right and wrong have next to can and cannot?

Also, everybody has the right to sex. Nobody's right to sex is taken away until the police knock at your door and get you for sodomy (which is so last century) A state that does not allow abortions does not take away the right to sex. Everybody has the right to sex and the responsibilities that come out of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also, the people whose contraception costs are preventing them from putting food on the table should really have less sex. If you can't pay the bills, you should kind of put exercising your right to sex on the backburner. We have the right to tell anybody whatever we want - especially if it makes sense. It's their right to do whatever they like and their responsibility to clean up the mess. Just wanted to clear that up, I don't think we live in an individualist utopia yet.
Reply With Quote