ruby sparks
Contributor
As an atheist, who doesn't believe in heaven or the equivalent, I have to ask myself, what is in the best interests of an embryo?
It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?
I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.
And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.
That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.
I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).
There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.
I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve and what it will achieve.
It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.
It is going to live a life which is at best a mixture of pain and pleasure and it is going to die (most likely in pain or after pain). If it is unwanted or not planned, is it a good thing to force it to face the world? Sure, I might, if I was its mother, change my mind and want it, in fact, that's an option. But maybe its father doesn't want it either and maybe never will. What gives me the right to foist the world onto this potential person without its consent?
I have to be very careful about deciding which is kinder and more responsible (assuming I don't have a time machine and getting unpregnant is not an option). For one thing, I can make sure it never suffers at all, assuming an atheist position and assuming that the abortion is done early (as most are) and that the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering.
And that's just thinking about the embryo. There are considerations for several people, mother, father, sisters, brothers, society. If we force people to have babies merely because they are pregnant, who wins? It's an open question.
That is my point of view. I realise it's not everyone's.
I'm not saying it's not ending a life. I'm not saying it's not denying a potential person a future. I tend to agree it is both those things. At a pinch, I might even agree it's ending the life of a human being (in that it's human and has being).
There are times when I would feel like arguing that it is morally wrong to have a baby after an unwanted pregnancy and that the most unselfish course of action is to have an abortion. There may even be times when I might wonder, with an open mind, whether or not it is morally right or indeed fundamentally selfish in certain ways to have babies at all. But I'm not necessarily making either of those cases here. I'm only suggesting personal, informed choice. And at the end of the day I would by and large feel that it is the woman's choice.
I do think that there are people out there, probably very well-intentioned people, who are pro-life (aka anti-choice) for a variety of possible reasons, and I tend to fundamentally question their moral stance, whether it's religious or not. At the very least, I think it should be challenged on moral grounds and I think that they should take a long, hard look at their position and what it actually entails and what they are hoping it will actually achieve and what it will achieve.
It goes without saying that I am all for measures which minimises the number of unwanted pregnancies, including good sex education and freely available contraception. I am assuming a situation in which the unwanted pregnancy has happened, for whatever reasons.