- Aristotle 335 BC
The typical abortion argument has boiled down to one of the two stances of pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life side argues than a woman should have no choice with respect to the new life growing initially as part of her body once conception has occurred. This seems to be the only argument that a pro-choice supporter hears. The pro-life believers back themselves up with religious teachings, and this comes across as forcing their views on others, causing a sort of resentment that makes productive reasoning difficult. There is also the argument of when life actually begins. This dispute is subjective to opinion. The arguments against abortion have very little to do with a logical stance, rather they are based purely on emotion.
Pro choice doesn't take as much of an emotional direction, so much as it stirs up an instinct for ones self-determination. "I have a right to my own body". This is an understandable feeling. To face a group of people telling you that you are no longer in control of yourself will always be hard to accept. Many pro-choice supporters don't actually like abortion but do not want to give up control of their own decisions.
For an argument to reach a conclusion there must be a common ground between each position. This is the ground in which people can be swayed from one side or the other. In order to truly find some kind of solution we should examine what has brought us to this point.
The interjection of religion is pointless. The sight of churchgoers with their protest signs displaying what god wants is more of a crutch to support their weak stance on the subject. I would like to challenge the omnipotence of god. How can people say that they have tried to save someone's life but yet it was gods will for those unfortunate ones to pass on, thus stating omnipotence, yet turn around and say we can kill babies against the will of a god? If you have power to alter fate at the beginning of life against the will of a god then it must be possible to save a life when it shouldn't have been saved. The other side would be to say that you die when you are supposed to die whether at an old age or in the womb. To state the omnipotence of a god is to admit that abortions are right. To state that a god is not is to say that we can save lives against his will.
Long ago, before the medical and technological advancements we have today, the life expectancy was much lower. We have added 30 years onto our life spans over the past 100 years. This has in turn given us a different perspective on the value of life. Before these advancements, the security of your own existence was in question. Because you just never knew how soon your time in this world was going to be over, your children would be useful to carry on your work. Apprenticeships were also of value because you may not see your work completed, so somebody must share in the knowledge you've accumulated in order to carry on after you die. Every life had value to it. As we've made life easier to survive with imitation foods and medicines as well as mechanical advancements to improve production, children have taken on a lesser value. Skills that have been passed down for endless generations have ceased abruptly with the introduction of non-human ways of doing things. Science allows us to exchange body parts with the deceased and cure diseases that previously kept our population under control. This has not only made children non-essential but has also made them a hindrance or an annoyance.
What I propose are the stances of scientific intervention versus non-intervention. Scientific intervention is for people whose ideals are for a limited population number who may never die. Transplant operations and advanced medications would ensure that they could live on forever and sterilisation or abortion would be absolute. No birth would be permissible except in the event of an unavoidable death. This is the perfection ideal that both pro-life and pro-choice would fall under. This is the result of the mentality that says, "my life is most important". These are the people who see no harm in the destruction of nature for money and are the same people who do not understand the value of life and its interactions within itself. These too are the people who protest for pro-life yet disrespects life the same. This is self-preservation to an extreme. Abortions are necessary under this belief whether it is approved of or not.
The alternate to scientific intervention would of course be a means of non-intervention. Throughout time people have told stories of how a god or gods were responsible for giving knowledge of survival. This can be found anywhere from native religions around the world to drawings found in the pyramids. Most people read the word "apple" in the Garden of Eden story (Genesis 2:17) even though the actual word apple is missing. With this omission, the story reads of a tale of a given knowledge against knowledge considered forbidden. Is it possible that the lessons learned throughout time have been there warning us and we have chosen not to listen? Maybe living a life less than perfect life was a choice made many times before for specific reasons or due to consequences we can't immediately see. Once you step outside of the offerings of nature you are disturbing the balance of life. Medicines can be found everywhere but you have to know how to see them and where to find them. This lifestyle is not an easy one and it is one that would most likely not be chosen by anyone, yet it seems to be the right one.
- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth: and he that is wise will not abhor them. Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known?
- Apocrypha
At some point we need to discuss what our responsibility to life is and the difference between what we 'can' do versus what we 'should' do. Will we follow a moral code or a selfish one? Most likely we will never be responsible enough to do the right thing.