Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Abortion: The Greater of Two Evils

Every person with bit of sense knows that morality is indissoluble from conscience and that something intrinsic in us will condemn burglary, homicide, and other iniquities. Regardless, often in life, we find ourselves forced to make a decision in which either alternative is wrong. Abortion poses such a problem. While it is true that no human being of standard moral aptitude desires for women to bear unwanted or inconvenient children, it is also true that those same human beings could not be apathetic to a woman being struck in the abdomen and would be far more furious if the woman were pregnant.

Ever since Lady Reason has sat on her throne, I have held the notion that the ‘unborn child’ is an undisputable description of a portion of the material world. Clearly, the fetus is alive, thus the conflict of whether it counts as ‘a life’ or not is nothing if it isn’t pure idiocy. I think those who vehemently argue the contrary are either plainly wrong or are implicitly arguing that the fetus is not sentient life. Yet, even those of the latter mindset should acknowledge that, if left to its natural devices, in a short time the fetus will become so. As to whether this ‘life’ is ‘human’ or not, the same reasoning applies. What else could it be? It is clearly evident the fetus isn’t a conglomerate of Neisseria gonorrhoeae or an asinine polyp. In fact, if it were anything but human, there would be no controversy. As for being ‘dependent,’ – as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists so often cites in defense of the barbaric practice – this has never struck me as a highly profound critique of any assortment of human cells in any condition. Medicine – at least not yet – doesn’t advocate for the ending of the dependent toddler’s life for the sake of the mother.

Alas, despite how I wish for it to do so, philosophizing endlessly would not address how I would act in such a scenario and, to be certain, the argument for a lesser evil is one that I dislike, because it has one certain effect; it ensures thereafter that the choice will be between grander evils. Nonetheless, I have a difficult time with the obviously dangerous philosophy of permitting the taking of innocent life to solely allow for another’s liberty. It is unfortunate that women alone must carry the burden of bearing children and, with regards to equity, I think a highly interesting argument could take place with a (perhaps non-existent) God on such a matter. In the end though one must be pragmatic. Therefore, until one convinces his Maker that He made a mistake and has the error corrected, I am in favor of the higher virtue and allowing infants to live … regrettably, even in defiance of mothers’ wishes.

[Today's guest post by Austin Clark is part of our paid blogging program. The author credits the late Christopher Hitchens for inspiration.]

No comments: