The abortion debate is one I always found interesting.
This deals with the future of a hypothetical child, sex and reproduction, responsibility, morals, where life begins, where personhood begins, killing, psychology and social acceptance — what’s not to like? One thing about this soup sandwich is while most people avoid this discussion, in politics everyone is forced to take a bite. In the comments section, I’m asking all Onyx Truthers to weigh in. In discussions online this subject tends to get a little rough like that scene off of Gangs of New York; quite obscene. Before we begin, I challenge you to moderate your temper. Thank you in advance.
On one side you have the “Pro-Choice” crowd who mostly believe that it’s the woman’s choice in the matter. The other side you have the “Pro-Life” crowd, who generally believe that one must have the child. While I’m speaking I’m going to take a look at both sides, and the sliding scale between the two. I’m going to assess both sides and then weigh in with my own frank opinion.
At What Measure is…
Let’s start off first with the fact that there’s a sliding scale of what’s what here. This has become an ideology, and with that comes a sliding scale. A person who’s pro-choice may only be so under extenuating circumstances, and a person who’s pro-life may accept an abortion if one were to become pregnant by way of rape. A person who’s pro-life may also just simply exercise that concept upon themselves, while making recommendations in line with the ideology they really don’t care what YOU do with yours. Plus, there are also zealots on both sides.
The first flaw I find with the “pro-life” crowd is the name. The name “pro-life” by word psychology implies that the opposing side is “pro-death”, and that’s not necessarily true, yet a lot of times that’s precisely how they argue against it. I recommend changing the name; pro-responsibility, or pro-parenthood, sounds more accurate. I’ve heard “pro-fetus” before, but as a pejorative… still more accurate than “pro-life”. Interestingly, those who are staunchly pro-life tend to also be the pro-capital punishment (death sentence) crowd, which is, largely not congruent with the essence of the term, “pro-life”. But that’s another article (I promise).
The pro-life crowd tends to use a lot of argument by emotion, which is something I’m usually not a fan of. This includes loaded word selection such as “murder”, which is a legal term that is used to elicit an emotional response. All killing is not equal to murder. I do however agree with the general premise of simply not having abortions, and that’s what I rather exercise. The politicians who court this crowd? It can get quite colorful, to say the least. I also have a serious problem with some of the random out-of-nowhere things that pro-life politicians say. Anti-intellectualism doesn’t help a debate.
The pro-lifers tend to be more religious, and frequently cite religion as a form of self-governance reference. I personally find no fault in that. However, everyone sins, and approaching one sin with a particular vigor and not another constitutes… an irregularity of faith practice.
The pro-life team tends to find themselves accused of not giving a damn about the child after being born. This is because of the tertiary policies that their politicians generally support typically seems to be incongruent with supporting children or supporting life as a whole. Overall, despite their flaws the pro-life crowd is a team with a noble cause. I prefer to not have abortions, thus responsible to not have children until I’m ready (as a man, yes I think this way). Of course being well intentioned has its flaws if you are bombing abortion clinics, but the main premise objectively speaking, is noble.
Pages: 1 2