I don't agree . Nevertheless, I've seen and heard some half-decent arguments in its favour in my time. This isn't one of them. In fact, it makes me feel rather ill. For example, she criticizes the view that
The greatest mother — the perfect mother — would carry to term every child she conceived, no matter how disruptive or ruinous, because her love would be great enough for anything.It is, though, rather ruinous to the baby's life to be killed, is it not? The heart of her argument is as follows:
[G]iven that both science and philosophy continue to struggle to define what the beginning of “life” is, wouldn’t it be better to come at the debate from a different angle entirely? For if a pregnant woman has dominion over life, why should she not also have dominion over not-life? This is a concept understood by many other cultures. The Hindu goddess Kali is both Mother of the Whole Universe, and Devourer of All Things. She is life and death. If women are, by biology, commanded to host, shelter, nurture and protect life, why should they not be empowered to end life, too?But if that's true...
I’m not advocating stoving in the heads of children, or encouraging late abortionsWhy not? It follows from the Kali argument.
Ultimately, I don’t understand antiabortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species, we’ve fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don’t believe in the sanctity of life.And that's a good thing?!?
I don’t understand why pregnant women — women trying to make rational decisions about their futures — should be subject to more pressure about preserving life than, say, Vladimir Putin.This makes no sense. I don't like what Putin's doing. I don't like what Ms Moran is doing (and has done) either. And what makes it worse is that her case is not in any way one of those testers, like rape or a handicapped child. She "was just too tired". I don't know, maybe I'm just too naïve or deluded or plain young to get this - and anyway, I'm a man, so I obviously have no right speaking on this topic at all - but I thought contraception was pretty good these days. I didn't realise anyone had to get pregnant in the first place. And I agree with commenter Daniel Webster from New York, who noted that
Rest assured, someday your children will be rationalising about the "ultimately loving act" of sparing the world from another "unwanted parent"


2 comments:
As I've already stated on my blog. I'm an advocate full-term abortion.
This means let's at least wait till the child is born, then decide if we want to keep it.
But perhaps we could go further, let the child live, at any point during his/her lifetime, if the mother decides she doesn't want him or her, she can then be allowed to kill it.
Of course this would make for very controversial executions the older the adult gets, but hey- it's all about choice isn't it?
On a serious note, a chilling view of the future, how far are we away from a society that determines not only the unborn have no choice, but that people over 70 years old, are of no value?
A few more steps and you have a society that automatically culls any population over 40. A few more steps and it's a totalitarian regime that determines whether a human being is 'useful' enough to keep alive or not.
Sounds far-fetched and sci-fi, but then 100 years ago gene selection, and euthanasia for the disabled and elderly would have too.
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Abortion.html
Post a Comment