My principles seem to have remained the same after discussing the contemporary issue of abortion. As I stated in my previous blog, I believe that humans should not have so much control over matters of life and death, as that is God's job. I don't think humans should have the right to decide when a person dies because we did not create said person. I also believe life begins at conception, so in combining the two previous principles, we can decide that I am pro-life. However, I don't think something as complex as abortion is a black and white issue. If delivering the child puts the mother at risk of death, I do think an exception can be made, as well as in the case of rape (though there are so many couples on waiting lists for adoption; if you are not fit to take care of a child, I'm sure there is an infertile couple who would be more than elated to adopt your baby). Also, as mentioned in the discussion, I am a male, and since I am not carrying any baby, it is really not my decision to make.
As arrogant as this sounds (I really don't mean to come off as arrogant, so i'm sorry if I do), I don't believe my principles need adjusting on the matter. I believe what I believe and I have a solid foundation and reasoning for doing so, and I would never force anything on anybody else because others are entitled to their views as I am entitled to mine. I feel that my opinions are not too rigid; they are moderately flexible viewpoints which suggest that I don't claim to know everything about life and morality (and i'll certainly admit to that). However, the philosopher that was least consistent with my viewpoint was Warren. Some of her points definitely held some validity, like the criteria for being a human being (though I don't know why she came up with the idea that you needed to fulfill two of them to be human; I felt that the number two was kind of picked at random), I disagreed with most of the things she said. I disagree with the idea that a fetus is not a human because they are dependent upon the mother. I don't think that is a strong argument because the counterargument was much better (that small children and the handicapped are also dependent; whether physical dependency or not, they would not be able to survive without the parent/guardian).
I commented on Alex's blog this week.
http://ethicalwellbeing-richardsa.blogspot.com/
I must say that I do agree with how you feel. I am pro-life. The matter of abortion is a rather complex issue and I feel that every baby deserves a chance at life. I too believe that a baby is a person at conception which is why having an abortion means that the baby never had a chance to reach its full potential or enjoy life. There are many people waiting to adopt which is why I believe that abortion is selfish. If you have no desire to care for the baby and you carry it full term just give it to a family less fortunate. At least this way the baby can have a life. No one deserves to have their right at life taken away.
ReplyDeleteI am oa person that believes the opposite of what you do, yet you present your arguments very well. I like that you said that God creates life and we have no right to decide to kill it. In many ways than one our ideas are the same. I do not agree with killing an unborn child. I do, however, believe that a woman should be able to do with her body as she pleases. You mentioned that as a male it is an iffy call for you, as well as it would be for any other male. I believe that even if a woman didn't use protection or had sex willingly, she should not bring an unwanted child into this world.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read arguments on pro life, I agree with much of your argument. I like how you said that God creates life and that we have no say as to whether people live or die. I also had a shift in my own point of view and I now beleive that life begins at conception. However, the fact that you're a male and have no say cuts both ways. I feel that a woman has a choice because she is the carrier of the child and no one else can put themselves in her shoes.
ReplyDelete