Legal
Ethical
Philosophical
Medical
Religious
Economical
Political
Abortion may be one of the few topics in modern history that touches all of the above categories. It is the most divisive political issue of our time. And yet, it appears to me, that even though many have opinions about abortion, there seems a void left inside, deep deep inside.
What is the utility of the abortion?
There is a innate dilemma with all innovation: intention versus application. The human has learned the hard way that once something is invented it is almost impossible to remove it.
This debate can be dealt with immediately or it can be delayed indefinitely. But what we do know is that it is always present. The innovation cannot be uninnovated. That would be unnatural, because we assume that the innovation was part of natural law. We assume that the human evolved to a point wherein existing forms just didn't work anymore. It is not a failure on any one person, but rather the proof that as creatures of cognition we can create things that are deemed necessary by a certain population, but may not be deemed necessary by the entire population. Now the game has begun.
If one assumes it is to simply get rid of the proof of intercourse, then abortion, as any reaction would be, stands as a deterrent. By that I mean, if humans thought abortions were so terrible, they would be used as a threat. But the death penalty has not stopped acts of murder or rape. Having access to a Nuclear device has not stopped war. Thusly, the stigma of abortions has not kept men and women from fornicating and feeling the need to avoid the natural consequence (parenting) of that act.
Here, we must note that abortion is not independent, but dependent of another act. Not just anyone can have an abortion. The medical procedure is gender specific and also requires certain acts to take place prior to the abortion. Firstly, a man and a woman must have intercourse. Secondly, the sperm must fertilize an egg. Thirdly, a decision by the woman or the couple must be made about the intercourse and its consequence called pregnancy. This pregnancy will result in the birth of another human being. As a creature of cognition; both the male and the female know from prior knowledge (social or family) that once a parent, always a parent. The responsibilities include: financial, emotional, physical, and mental.
Fourth, in order for the woman or couple to contemplate the abortion, they must first have access to the medical procedure. This access would be rated as easy to impossible. The woman or couple would measure the risk versus the reward. The risk would be defined as the possiblity of becoming a parent when the human does not want to be a parent. The reward would be defind as the end result of the abortion would remove the possibility of becoming a parent for that particular singular act of fornication.
Fifth, and this may be the most difficult, what was gained by the abortion? Did it set the female and male free from their own preconceived notion of the burden of parenthood? What about loss?
A. If the fetus would've gone full term, then perhaps that human would've studied oncology. And in doing so invented a treatment which would've led to a cure for cancer.
B. If the fetus goes full term, but this time the human is a cashier at a gas station. One Saturday night, over a fight in the parking lot, the cashier gets shot at the age of 23. The world still turns and it is indifferent.
C. If the fetus goes full term and the human manifests "troubles" early on. As the human ages more "troubles" take place until the human, at the age of 27, has now raped 11 different women in four states.
If sex is a singular act then we must be willing to acknowledge the multiple outcomes of that birth. Because we cannot say with any certainty about that birth, it is irrational to speak of the conception or the end the pregnancy.
No one has sex knowing what the outcome will be. A couple may be "planning" a family by monitoring her monthly cycle, but those couples never entertained the procedure called abortion. It would defeat the purpose of all the planning. One cannot have a family if they continue to abort the fetus after conception.
A libertarian, a green, a male, a female, a catholic, an atheist, and all the rest that take it to task to name a position to their own belief structure; as if the name itself warrants serious thought and consideration, justify by believing that their own belief is the proper belief. Once this is accomplished, then all further discussions of logic and reason are off. The topic, for them, is closed.
If someone wants to have sex, then they know there is a chance of a pregnancy. They also know there is a chance of a STD. A woman can be frigid in the same manner a man can be limp. Both genders can be barren or unable to procreate. But science has solved many of these problems. And these solutions have generally been accepted by the society as a whole. Of course, there are minor groups that refuse to acknowledge these solutions or have taken staunch positions to the counter. Regardless, the human seems to allow a double standard with these medical procedures. I believe it stems from the use of one word: medical.
I solve this small dilemma by saying simply that if a procedure effects the human body which alters the course of the human's life, then it is medical.
There are treatments for most STDs. There are medications for erectile and libido issues. There also remains old school devices as abstinence and condoms.
No matter how far you go with this discussion, everyone deciding here must answer the simple question: what is the utility of the abortion?
You must first engage the cause before you set values to the effects. When you say abortion is murder, you do so by offending the logical matrix meant for ontology. In that same pathology, if you believe abortion is murder, then you must also see masturbation as murder. You could also say something like: "Any sexual activity that ends with null children is deemed an unnatural act."
You could base all of your beliefs on such a statement. But does it deal with reality or an idealism. You put the human in a place they don't belong.
If a woman owns her body which includes her womb, then a man owns his sperm; but by themselves, the egg and the sperm, are just two separate entities. It is only when joined that they create something. It is the creation of the "something" that belongs to being which belongs to ontology. When a woman gets pregnant, we know that she will give birth to a human. There is no speculation about her giving birth to a toaster or a love seat or a sports car. It is a natural course of events which can be interrupted by the procedure which makes that outcome disappear.
So what does it say about a society that would invent a procedure that seems so condemned and yet utilized every year? What does it say about American's humanity?
Your passions and your reason cannot maneuver around this unless you are purposely avoiding the task of answering the question.
Abortion is nothing but a medical procedure which cannot be uninvented. No one has used atomic weapons since WW2 but we know they still exist as well as the act of violence known as war.
Abortion is to deal with the consequences of an act. When you make it more than this you insult the intellect of everyone else. You use emotivism because it makes you feel good or important as if your post will end the discussion in a virtual eureka.
Abortion is a topic born never to be answered collectively. Roe versus Wade has not addressed any of the categories listed at the top of this post beyond that of legal.
Being is a topic that will never be solved as it is not a problem. It belongs to a realm that is both timeless and without reference. It belongs to philosophy and there it has a place and a home. It is to be discussed by everyone generation that follows, but it can never be answered completely without severe consequence to us all.
The reason abortion is so divisive is due to the fact that it is marketed as a solution to a problem: abortion is murder.
But the pregnancy is not a problem. The conception is not a problem. The end of a pregnancy is not a problem. We manufacture a problem as to implement the solution.
A woman can suffer a miscarriage. Is that grounds for a manslaughter charge? What if we have proof she consumed alcohol? What if we know she smoked cigarettes until her last tri-mester? Would you have grounds for child abuse or assault?
You can promote adoption but you can't make it fool proof. There are thousands of case studies in MSW programs to prove that pedophiles got into foster care programs in America. There are also cases wherein a couple took in children for the monthly check. Are these circumstances grounds for saying you are pro-birth rather than pro-life?
You can force a woman to give birth, but you can't force her to be a parent. You can't force the male to be part of the child's life. You argue rights as if natural law has something to do with creation.
The medical procedure of abortion is a test of everyone's metaphysical aptitude. In the end, I have found it to be about control...from both sides of the argument.
My final thought revolves around the psychological term cognition. The fetus simply has no means of currently communiticating its own wants and desires. The outsider has made that decision for them as if they were already a human child and you were acting as a parent or guardian. But the fetus is not a human child with cognition. This again belongs to ontology as it deals with eventuality. If the fetus goes full term, eventually a human child will be born. And as a child cannot make adult decisions legally in America, we find ourselves once again going back to the female and male fornicators. They shared one thing they both own, and now face an eventual outcome that is not in question.
What is the utility of abortion?
Let each decide that for themselves. Let each find peace in their minds and their hearts.
No force necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment