The Fly on Abortion
At a later time, I'll go into my talk radio preferences, who I listen to, who I don't, et cetera. Suffice to say, I'm not a big fan of Sean Hannity, even though I tend to agree with him. This afternoon I ran some errands, and while I was avoiding listening to Hannity, I tuned into Dr. Laura Schlessinger. One of the callers asked for advice on getting an abortion, and in true Dr. Laura fashion, Dr. Laura totally laid into her. While I don't agree with Dr. Laura's approach, I figured I may as well get my views out on this issue.
I used to be pro choice for two reasons. First, I didn't feel that I, as a man, had any business telling a woman what she could or couldn't do with/to her body. Second, I didn't feel that I had any business restricting a woman's right to make her own choices.
Then, I thought about it, and I heard some pretty reasonable and convincing arguments. I changed my mind.
Contrary to what the postmodernists, free love types, and other new age folks would have you believe, morality is not relative. I, as a man, have the prerogative to tell a woman what is and isn't moral, just like she does for me. Saying that a man can't tell a woman that aborting a baby is incompatible with morality is the same as saying that a woman has no business telling a man that beating his wife is wrong. If we're going to have a society based on moral equality, it's gotta cut both ways.
As for a woman's right to choose... A woman doesn't have the right to choose to kill a baby. There is no difference between a cluster of cells and a fully grown human person. That cluster of cells, that zygote, that fetus, whatever you want to call it; those are stages. A toddler is a human. An infant is a human. A teenager is a human. These are stages of development, they are not independent entities. Even at the embryonic or zygote stages, that group of cells isn't a part of the woman's body; if it were, it would share identical genetic material. Instead, it only has half her genetic content. She doesn't have a right to kill it.
A woman has every right to make her own choices, but nobody has the right to kill an innocent human life. That's where I stand.
I used to be pro choice for two reasons. First, I didn't feel that I, as a man, had any business telling a woman what she could or couldn't do with/to her body. Second, I didn't feel that I had any business restricting a woman's right to make her own choices.
Then, I thought about it, and I heard some pretty reasonable and convincing arguments. I changed my mind.
Contrary to what the postmodernists, free love types, and other new age folks would have you believe, morality is not relative. I, as a man, have the prerogative to tell a woman what is and isn't moral, just like she does for me. Saying that a man can't tell a woman that aborting a baby is incompatible with morality is the same as saying that a woman has no business telling a man that beating his wife is wrong. If we're going to have a society based on moral equality, it's gotta cut both ways.
As for a woman's right to choose... A woman doesn't have the right to choose to kill a baby. There is no difference between a cluster of cells and a fully grown human person. That cluster of cells, that zygote, that fetus, whatever you want to call it; those are stages. A toddler is a human. An infant is a human. A teenager is a human. These are stages of development, they are not independent entities. Even at the embryonic or zygote stages, that group of cells isn't a part of the woman's body; if it were, it would share identical genetic material. Instead, it only has half her genetic content. She doesn't have a right to kill it.
A woman has every right to make her own choices, but nobody has the right to kill an innocent human life. That's where I stand.
1 Comments:
The problem is that conservatives have allowed liberals to frame the discussion. Liberals have been allowed to redefine "fetus" and "zygote", and nobody has called them on the irresponsible argument that "it's an issue of women's rights."
Liberals have a tendency to carry on debates in the same way they try to win elections: by changing the rules to preclude their having to fight fair. Academic dishonesty from liberals? You'll forgive me if I'm not terribly surprised.
Post a Comment
<< Home