Abortion isn’t reproductive health care

I found the following replies here.  The article is a dress-down of a doctor who wrote a spoof on late-term abortion in the 43rd week that is seen by pro-choice people as moronic.  The author tells us that abortion is an ethics question that has several places where the line can be drawn.

Every exception to a rule helps prove the rule.  If there are nothing but exceptions, then there is no rule.  A rule must hold true in the vast majority of cases.  I think it is fair to say that, in the vast majority of cases, a baby carried to term and delivered will produce a favorable outcome for both mother and child.  Delivering is certainly less dangerous to the health of the mother in the vast majority of cases.  This is only speaking of the danger of the physical complication of abortion and doesn’t take into account any emotional harm.  And, it can certainly be said the delivery is safer to the health of the baby than abortion in the vast majority of cases.

In a very, very small number of cases, the child may have little chance of surviving delivery.  But, even in that case, there really is no ethical quandary.  To abort the child, in almost all of those special cases, is still to play God.  Of course, if you believe that there is no God, you may not wish to use such a term.  But, in essence, you are elevating yourself to the supreme authority in that case, which is a good as saying you are all-knowing and infallible in this case.  And yet, many times, babies that were supposed to be damaged beyond hope and never survive have done quite well.  I have a good friend whose son wasn’t supposed to survive childbirth and for sure would never be able to walk of function.  Today, he is in his twenties and walks with the aid of a cane.  He is happy, well-adjusted.

There are, of course, the down syndrome babies that people want to terminate.  But there is ample evidence that these special people are far from miserable.  It is only the selfishness of the parents that creates the illusion of an ethical conundrum.

What I find interesting about Bob’s argument is that he assumes that, since two choices result the same as the one choice of abstinence, then both outcomes result in a moral equivalent.  Except that, in one choice, nothing dies, and , in the other, it does.  It also doesn’t take into consideration at all the predicament of the woman, who must not only wrestle with the decision to abort but must also undergo the procedure.

Ethics and moral issues aside, the use of abortion as birth control is an extremely expensive option.

Will · 92 weeks ago

Developmentally we can say with certainty that every stage from zygote to fetus to embryo to baby to child to youth to adult to maturity are each necessary for an ontogenentic understanding of human life. To claim that any one of the earlier stages is dispensable or less important than any other would hardly make sense in this context.In India and China, and perhaps other cultures as well, the age of a person is calculated from the time of either conception or gestation (menstruation), so that a baby is already nine months old when it leaves the womb. This is a very ancient tradition. To claim abortion is not murder at any arbitrary point in the ontogeny of human life thus seems unjustified from this perspective.If one accepts the option of “choice” AFTER pregnancy, then it seems hypocritical not to accept “choice” BEFORE the decision to have sexual intercourse. If one accepts the sanctity of human life and the essential role that intercourse plays in the creation of that life, then coitus should hold a special sanctity in accord with that fact.This is the reason religion promotes the morals of sexual behavior so carefully, because of its role in the creation of life. By upholding the sanctity of that life, the process of its creation cannot be anything less sacred. Likewise, by forgetting this fact not only does the act of sexual intercourse become degraded but the value of life itself is diminished.

2 replies · active 91 weeks ago


Bob Oboc's avatar

Bob Oboc · 91 weeks ago

And yet both India and China allow and provide support for abortions.Way to think rationally about choice before sex. Abstinence works so well, it is part of the natural human condition to not have sex. Just look at all the successful abstinence programs out there! Of course it is quite easy to see how one could choose to have sex and then choose to get an abortion, although this somehow escaped your logic.

Will's avatar

Will · 91 weeks ago

Bob, Do you not find your comments completely irrelevant to what I said?I mentioned the continuity of life from conception to death, and how tradition views that throughout the world. You reply that such countries allow and provide for abortions. What does that imply for you? I know what it means to me, and I think to any rational person. It is allowing the taking of a human life. What is your answer?Why do you bring up abstinence? Did I mention abstinence in my comment previous to this one? I commented on choice and the hypocrisy of thinking we don’t have choice before rather than after having intercourse. Yes, one can choose to have sex and then have to face the choice of either aborting the pregnancy or bringing an unwanted child into the world. Do you see nothing wrong in this?But then, you defend your position by claiming, it is natural to have sexual relations. Attempts to avoid that natural inclination always fail. So we might as well go with the natural impulse, whatever the consequences, even if it ends in taking a human life.Human beings don’t have to have sexual relations in order to live. It is quite possible to live a life of celibacy without harm to one’s health or well being. On the other hand no one can live without heeding the call of nature. Still we control the later function until we are in a proper situation where we can answer that call. There is no question of abstinence in either of these situations. It is purely a matter of following one’s nature or restraining it according to the circumstances. No one is asking you to abstain from defecating, only to control the impulse. This is part of civilized life.Somehow, sexual relationships get a license to take place without restraint — not abstinence (there is a proper time and place for it). Why does this particular activity get such a license? It may be a strong impulse, but so is anger, so is greed. Society draws a line when these impulses lead to taking the life of another, however. Why is lust given special privilege?

By not examining these questions, by simply following the crowd, we loose something of our own human nature, and the society as a whole become degraded. I am not one for blindly following evolutionists or one’s genitals wherever they may lead. But this kind of thinking is only for those who have enough sense to understand that life or Nature is not simply a bag of marbles that just happened to form a world. The marbelists will think that everything is just fine – so just eat, drink and have sex and never let any foolish, unscientific idea that there is more to life than that ever enter your mind.


Leave a comment

Filed under On Family, Health, Environment and Ethics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s