If you watch pretty much any action film you'll see a variety of creatively disturbing ways in which baddies get what they deserve. In our culture it seems to be accepted that untimely and horrible deaths should only ever be suffered by the most evil of villains who've committed terrible atrocities.
Is it fair then to infer that a terminated fetus was an evil villain? No, obviously that's ridiculous. You couldn't even convict them if 'existence' was a crime, based on the principle of diminished responsibility.
So, if their existence isn't a crime, then the atrocity they've commited must be forcing an inconvenienced mother to give birth to an unwanted baby? Having to face the consequences of your actions is a terrible injustice right? Well, no. We'd all expect a murderer to go to prison as a consequence of their actions.
Ok, but what if the woman had no choice in the conception, or the unborn fetus would be severely handicapped if delivered? Since neither circumstance is the fault of the fetus, a death sentence is unjust, as they haven't committed any crime for which they should be punished. But I'm assuming that the law should protect a baby inside the womb the same as it does after birth. Can it really be legal to kill a baby based purely on it's location?
Some people say that a human in the womb isn't really human, or they avoid calling it a baby because of the connotations of that. But at 24 weeks a fetus can be terminated purely for convenience, and there is no physical difference between a 24 week old human inside the womb, or outside after birth. Maybe we shouldn't think of a baby's 'delivery' but of it's 'deliverance' from a lawless prison, where it has no human rights.
So, I really don't see how the 'right to choose' even meets our culture's moral ideals. Could a person be so passionate about the right to choose, that they are completely unmoved by the details of the procedures involved? Do people go through the whole process refusing to think about it at all, avoiding any details of what actually happens?
Is it fair then to infer that a terminated fetus was an evil villain? No, obviously that's ridiculous. You couldn't even convict them if 'existence' was a crime, based on the principle of diminished responsibility.
So, if their existence isn't a crime, then the atrocity they've commited must be forcing an inconvenienced mother to give birth to an unwanted baby? Having to face the consequences of your actions is a terrible injustice right? Well, no. We'd all expect a murderer to go to prison as a consequence of their actions.
Ok, but what if the woman had no choice in the conception, or the unborn fetus would be severely handicapped if delivered? Since neither circumstance is the fault of the fetus, a death sentence is unjust, as they haven't committed any crime for which they should be punished. But I'm assuming that the law should protect a baby inside the womb the same as it does after birth. Can it really be legal to kill a baby based purely on it's location?
Some people say that a human in the womb isn't really human, or they avoid calling it a baby because of the connotations of that. But at 24 weeks a fetus can be terminated purely for convenience, and there is no physical difference between a 24 week old human inside the womb, or outside after birth. Maybe we shouldn't think of a baby's 'delivery' but of it's 'deliverance' from a lawless prison, where it has no human rights.
So, I really don't see how the 'right to choose' even meets our culture's moral ideals. Could a person be so passionate about the right to choose, that they are completely unmoved by the details of the procedures involved? Do people go through the whole process refusing to think about it at all, avoiding any details of what actually happens?
I know that there are a lot of difficult and complicated circumstances, which I would find incredibly hard to deal with. But in the light of the facts, whatever the situation might be, I just don't understand how people think that abortion is an option.
No comments:
Post a Comment