Human nature creates a disturbing battle between man made technological and medical advancements and, what could be viewed as, man made moral and social values. This leads to the common debate between, yes society can but no, society should not. Yet this is under determined as to who is in charge to make such decisions and who should be able to regulate the principles that guide an individual’s human nature. This debate has extended to a number of advancements from being able to prolong life against the natural course of time to being able to fly against the physical nature of human beings.
Regardless what topic is being addressed, it seems that the only consistency in human nature is the tendency to debate issues that are linked to assumptions and opinions. The same is true for the debate over abortion, or the right and ability of an individual to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to the fetus becoming an independently surviving human being. The pro-life standpoint is that abortion is morally wrong and that there are a number of barren women and families who would love to adopt a child if only it was born rather than aborted. However, one must consider the nature of the “morals,” and the overworked and overcrowded foster care system in order to see the errors in the pro-life assumptions and opinions.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Pro-Abortion: Refuting the Opposition".
The morals, which constitute the pro-life movement’s arguments, are generally related to the morals that are guided by the Christian Bible or some other religious text that claims that each human being has been carefully placed in the world, from the time of conception, in order to serve a purpose or do the work of a higher power. This, if it is an individual’s belief, may very well be the driving force for the majority of their own personal decisions in their life.
However, if it is not the belief of the woman who is choosing an abortion, this “higher power” is seemingly irrelevant in their decision making process or, according to the individual’s belief, the abortion is the most morally sound decision for the best outcome for all parties, including the fetus, that are involved. Therefore, as religion is not mandatory, then the morals that are based in religion should not be mandatory and, by default, neither should child bearing. Scholars have claimed that “mandatory childbearing makes the woman a hostage to the will of others” (Yoder). This means that a woman, who is forced to carry a child, is held hostage to the beliefs of others in the same manner that a woman who is raped is held to her rapist. This means that, upon conception, a woman is expected to give up all of her rights to her body based on the beliefs that others hold to be of social value.
However, these social values and morals do not take into consideration the social burden of taking care of unwanted infants nor do they consider what becomes of these human beings. The simple answer that the “morally correct” individuals claim is that there are a number of families who would love to adopt a baby. To this, one would simply refer to the foster care system that is already crippled due to the lack of “morally correct” individuals willing to step in to provide for the children who are already part of humanity. Looking only at one state, Arizona of the United States and not considering the rest of the world, it is noted that, in 2012 “as of September, 16,990 children were in the state’s care, up from 10,700 in 2011” (Rojas). This represents nearly 17,000 children who were born into a social value system that has failed them and there hope for a productive and happy life is diminishing as the system, and society, continued to turn it’s back on them. Where are all of the families who are so full of love that they want to adopt? It would seem that, choosing a child is just as difficult as choosing to not carry one to term.
Each life is precious and should be protected. However, it is necessary to consider what type of protection is best suited for the situation. The morals that guide women to have abortions may differ from those who are pro-life but this does not suggest that these women are without morals. To the contrary, these women look at a bigger picture and want to avoid having a child that may end up in a world that does not have a place for them. These women are choosing to stop the suffering of the child prior to dropping a baby on a system that cannot provide for it and would simply press the baby through into an adulthood that he or she would likely be ill-prepared to endure.
- Rojas, Rick. “As Arizona Struggles to Fix Foster System, Children Suffer the Consequences.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 May 2015.
- Yoder, Katie. “Huffington Post: “We Can Have Morally Good Abortions”.” LifeNews.com. Life News, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 11 May 2015.
