Found on my Twitter account was this link to a story about a Chicago lawyer who proposes that women should have the right to abort children who have the "gay gene." Gay rights groups are upset about this consistent piece of logic. But really if one thinks about it and holds that women have a right to abortion for any reason (my body, my choice and all) then the lawyer's argument makes sense.
A public confession first. My initial thought about reading the story was "See. SEE! This is where bad ideas lead you!" But this is precisely the wrong attitude to have, as I was taking delight in the mental hurt that the ideologies are inflicting on others. Mea Culpa.
What is important and perfectly right to point out is that since ideologies are isolated by nature they often tend to conflict. In this case, "gay children" are caught in the crossfire. Abortion rights advocates argue that no one can impose limits on a woman's choice to murder her child. Gay rights advocates are horrified at this, as they argue (rightly so) that this simply means that gays are not to be disposed simply because they are "unwanted" or "would have a tough life due to discrimination."
This is akin to the silence of the feminists like N.O.W. regarding the "gendercide" of abortion of baby girls. China, India, and even in "advanced" nations like England are finding that families are preferring one child and that child should be male. There is a real unnatural imbalance in China right now (some 23 million "extra" males) who don't have a bride. Yet this genocide of young girls is taking place without any protest and even our consent.
One thing that this does illustrate in a back handed way is how the right to life ranks at the top of the hierarchy of truths. When the right to life is threatened, all other rights inevitably follow suit. When we compromise on the right to life in the name of some other truth, we do damage to both.
The ideology of abortion swallows all other considerations. Look how often it comes up. Healthcare, legal issues, even the everyday conversations we have. Abortion is a cancer that eats at the heart of anyone with a conscience. We have to force ourselves to look the other way for it to even take place. Yet it is a holocaust that dwarfs the WWII genocide of the Jews.
As long as abortion is the law of the land no right, no principle, no good is safe from its encroachment. Evil does not bide alternatives. It does not stop until it consumes everything in its path. And as long as we continue to try to justify it we will undermine everything else we do right.
2 comments:
An interesting article - I'm just curious on your opinion of the morality of the more morally ambiguous sides of abortion: (1)What about abortions for women who have been raped? I bet it doesn't take much imagination to think what kind of damage that further does to that poor woman - and think about going through life knowing your father was a man who violently raped your mother. (2) ectopic pregnancy - that is a life, but not viable life (usually). In the overwhelming number of those cases the mother will die if she attempts to carry to term. But do you force mothers to attempt to carry for that 1/1,000 chance at a live birth? (3) plan B - This drug supposedly does not allow eggs to be released, but if they are they will be able to implant. The research supports the idea that usually no abortion takes place, but the secondary mechanism of the drug would cause an abortion if the primary mechanism failed. I am wondering your stance on the morality of this drug independently from your stance on birth control - just your opinion on it in terms of abortion.
I find taking personal moral stances on these 3 issues to be very murky and am interested in your opinions and justifications.
Thanks for stopping by!
In regards to your questions I will try to answer as best as I can.
1. Even in the cases of rape, abortion is not an option. I am not sure in principle how murdering a child for what the father did is justice in any sense of the term. Having said that, I am all for assisting the woman who had to go through such a horrific act and finding ways to help her, not to mention forcing the father to pay for support. In fact from what I've read it is actually recommended that the woman brings the child to term rather than abortion, which can cause additional stress.
2. An ectopic pregnancy is an illustration of the concept of double effect. Basically a morally neutral action, such as removing infected tissue from a mother caused by such a pregnancy, is not a direct abortion. It is a foreseen consequence. SO in this limited case an abortion is caused by the removal of the tissue, which is morally acceptable.
3. An abortion caused by Plan B is still an abortion because it is a directed act to prevent pregnancy. However, in very limited cases, such as rape, as long as conception has not been detected, Plan B can be administered to my knowledge. My understanding is that protocol in Catholic hospitals states this is one case where Plan B can be administered.
Post a Comment