I whipped out a brief paper on abortion for one of my classes. It’s not very good but I’m going to post it anyway because I like to have content on the site. Yo.
I love that recliner,
More than any one specific argument frequently raging across the American socio-political landscape, I find the basis of the arguments to be the more intriguing thing to examine. It seems to me that most cases presented before the Supreme Court of our nation involve a question of freedom. We are a nation that demands total freedom for its citizens, but requires rules and regulations. We have other rights we demand that often come into conflict. Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not always complimentary. For example, what is the constitutions stand on abortions?
Abortion is a great example because it goes right to the heart of the debate. Is it more important to have the freedom to get an abortion, or is it more important to protect the life (or potential life, but let’s not get semantic here – it’s less than 3 pages, for pete’s sake.) of a person unable to protect his or her self? Which is better: life or freedom? Should the giving of freedom to one person justify the taking of a life as the expense of that freedom?
Let’s look at the dilemma from a couple of different persons’ points of view.
A clergyman in the LDS church might take a hard stance against abortion. Indeed, their official stance is “thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it.” This commandment comes from their scripture and is meant to include the abortion of a fetus, no matter how developed it may be in all circumstances except where the life of the mother is in danger or the child is the result of rape. A clergyman may find his choice made for him in this situation. It’s easy to defend this standpoint by simply saying that the word of god comes from, um, God, and therefore is irrefutable.
A doctor may take a different point of view. I imagine that most doctors, even the least cynical, may look at history and find that women will always seek out abortions – even when no professional medical abortions are available. A doctor may feel that providing safe and sanitary conditions for a dangerous medical procedure would be better than allowing women to put themselves in harms way. Some doctors may even feel obligated to supply this support. This is disregarding a doctor’s personal views of what may lead a woman to have an abortion – which views can vary widely from person to person.
Now consider the point of view of the politician. This poor person has to answer a hard question: Where do you stand? This guy has to weigh and balance his need to be honest to himself and his need to be elected to the position he desires. Imagine a politician who believes he can make a real difference in the quality of life of millions of people, but who needs to be elected by a constituency of people who hold a view of abortion contrary to his own. Does he say “Yes, I’m pro-life,” even though he’s not? Will he stand by his convictions and hope for the best? The political arena seems to be one where a person’s values can not be displayed. Can you imagine a person running for president just getting up and saying “I’m totally against abortions and I think those who get abortions are morally depraved killers,” and then winning a campaign?
The abortion debate rages on day after day. It’s developed far beyond the basic “freedom vs. life” argument and become a gargantuan battle of semantics. Every person, no matter what sphere of work they may be in, will feel the effects of this argument simply because it really is so basic at its core. Freedom or life? Is a life where one isn’t wanted still a life worth living? Is a life where you aren’t free to decide your destiny one worth living? Tough questions.