Abortion is classed as a taboo subject, and that's reason enough to talk about it. It seems to me that the conflict waged between pro-life and pro-choice people will go on forever, simply because both sides are bogged down and spinning their wheels in an unwinnable argument over the morality of abortion. This is a shame because I believe both sides actually agree on the most important aspect of abortion and could work together to prevent a great deal of suffering. (I should state here that I am anti-abortion, which is easy for me because I will never be faced with the decision.)
Pro-choice people are not evil and are not stupid. In general, they readily accept the need to restrict human choices when there are sound, logical reasons for those restrictions. Failing to win them over to the anti-abortion camp doesn't mean we have lost or are wrong, we just don't have a convincing enough argument. And I doubt that we ever will because most anti-abortion people say, "I am against abortion, but in cases where......" Any exception means even pro-lifers realise there is a subjective choice involved.
The argument as to whether a woman should or should not have the freedom to choose abortion is like arguing whether a man has the freedom to choose to suicide. There is no escaping the fact that it's the woman who makes the decision. She may have no choice about getting pregnant but she has the say about ending it. Others can decide whether abortion is legal, but making it illegal doesn't remove her choice, it only adds a different dimension to her choice. Other people can provide options and alternatives, they can provide counselling and put pressure on her to decide either way but the fact remains that the decision is hers to make. If denied a safe method, she can decide to use unsafe methods. It's impossible to deny her the choice unless she is closely guarded 24/7. She has the choice; it's really only a matter of whether a safe way is part of that choice.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. I believe those who advocate abortion on demand are against abortion as such. They are not pushing for women to get pregnant just to assert the right to have an abortion. They want women to have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. These same people would go to great expense and effort to save a wanted pregnancy or to save a very premature baby. The key word is 'wanted'.
People on both sides of the abortion debate are intelligent and caring and probably agree that every pregnancy should be welcomed. Most anti-abortionists would be over the moon if they could halve the number of abortions performed each year and I believe pro-choice people would be just as pleased if the number of unwanted pregnancies dropped by half.
The question is, ‘Which is more important, winning an argument or reducing the number of abortions?’ Both sides could achieve a great deal by pooling their passionate energy and cooperating to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The combined resources of both camps could study the causes of unwanted pregnancies and then unite to eliminate those causes. We can do it if we really want to.
Bob Myers,
Author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.
Pro-choice people are not evil and are not stupid. In general, they readily accept the need to restrict human choices when there are sound, logical reasons for those restrictions. Failing to win them over to the anti-abortion camp doesn't mean we have lost or are wrong, we just don't have a convincing enough argument. And I doubt that we ever will because most anti-abortion people say, "I am against abortion, but in cases where......" Any exception means even pro-lifers realise there is a subjective choice involved.
The argument as to whether a woman should or should not have the freedom to choose abortion is like arguing whether a man has the freedom to choose to suicide. There is no escaping the fact that it's the woman who makes the decision. She may have no choice about getting pregnant but she has the say about ending it. Others can decide whether abortion is legal, but making it illegal doesn't remove her choice, it only adds a different dimension to her choice. Other people can provide options and alternatives, they can provide counselling and put pressure on her to decide either way but the fact remains that the decision is hers to make. If denied a safe method, she can decide to use unsafe methods. It's impossible to deny her the choice unless she is closely guarded 24/7. She has the choice; it's really only a matter of whether a safe way is part of that choice.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. I believe those who advocate abortion on demand are against abortion as such. They are not pushing for women to get pregnant just to assert the right to have an abortion. They want women to have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. These same people would go to great expense and effort to save a wanted pregnancy or to save a very premature baby. The key word is 'wanted'.
People on both sides of the abortion debate are intelligent and caring and probably agree that every pregnancy should be welcomed. Most anti-abortionists would be over the moon if they could halve the number of abortions performed each year and I believe pro-choice people would be just as pleased if the number of unwanted pregnancies dropped by half.
The question is, ‘Which is more important, winning an argument or reducing the number of abortions?’ Both sides could achieve a great deal by pooling their passionate energy and cooperating to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The combined resources of both camps could study the causes of unwanted pregnancies and then unite to eliminate those causes. We can do it if we really want to.
Bob Myers,
Author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.
RSS Feed
