Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

I object to moral objections

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

I have many pet peeves. If I was to write them all out, the list would probably be longer than I am tall. One of my big ones is people with an annoying air of moral superiority. Now, I can somewhat stand people who always think they’re right if they’re just hanging around doing nothing in particular. They’re still annoying, but they’re also mostly harmless. It’s the people who actually have some modicum of power over others that I really hate.

Take, for example, pharmacists. Specifically, pharmacists in Washington State who refuse to fill prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B because they have a moral objection to the pill, contraceptives, or people who have unprotected sex and have to rely on a morning-after pill to make sure they don’t get pregnant. Specific enough?

Anyways, there’s been an ongoing debate here in Washington regarding the rights of said pharmacists. Essentially, should these pharmacists be allowed to refuse service to people because their conscience says so? I’m not sure what the current situation is, but my opinion is this: if your job is causing you moral dilemmas that interfere with your ability to do carry out your responsibilities, you need to find a new line of work. Plain and simple. If you don’t want to find a new job, then swallow your pride and do what the customer wants. I mean, if an employee at a movie theater refused to sell tickets to a certain movie on the grounds that said movie contains sex and violence which he finds morally reprehensible, he’d be canned pretty quickly. Same goes for any job.

It seems to me that these pharmacists think they’re above the most important rule in the service industry: the customer is always right. So what if they don’t want to get pregnant? So what if they didn’t use protection? Judge them on your own time and give them the damn pill already. You’re paid to dispense medicine, not moral judgment.

Sphere: Related Content

Why I am pro-choice

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

I had an interesting thought the other day. People who are avidly pro-life claim to be acting in the best interests of the baby. But is this completely true? Sure, they’re protecting the baby from being killed, but what about after?

The majority of women who get abortions do it because they don’t feel ready for a child. They’re generally poor and uneducated, living in the bad part of town. They may be drug-users or alcoholics who fear their own destructive behavior would hurt their newborn. Or perhaps they simply don’t want the child.

Now, let’s say abortion is outlawed. These women who would be most likely to get abortions must now have their babies. These babies will now grow up in poor environments. They may be unwanted, or they may have an alcoholic or crackhead for a mother. Numerous studies have shown that kids growing up in situations like this are most likely to either follow in their parent’s footsteps (become poor, uneducated, teenage mothers) or turn to a life of crime. In short, their lives really aren’t going to be very good at all. This is not to say that some won’t rise above that kind of life, but unfortunately, those kids are among the minority.

So, if you really did care about the well being of the child, you’d recognize that forcing them to be born is as much a punishment to the child as it could be to the mother, especially if they’re unwanted. Following the legalization of abortion in the United States, infanticide rates dropped rapidly, and more than 20 years later, crime dropped even more (as a direct result of all those future criminals not being born).

While I certainly don’t condone abortion as a drastic form of birth control, I would rather it be left open for women to make the choice. Believe it or not, women know if they’ll be a good mother or not, so I’d rather they had an abortion than be forced to give birth to a child who won’t be wanted or taken good care of. That’s why I’m pro-choice. Well, that and I’m a gay God-hating liberal who runs over kittens in his girly-man Prius. (In case you missed the sarcasm, I’m actually none of those. Just FYI.)

Sphere: Related Content

The abortion rant

Saturday, July 8th, 2006

This is a rant about abortions. If the mere mention of the word abortion brings up mental images of dismembered babies in trash cans, you should probably leave before I mention the word abortion again. Oops.

So, on with the rant. I am pro-choice. Always have been and probably always will be. Now, before any of you jump on my back and berate me for being a baby-killing godless liberal or something along those lines, let me make it clear that I do not love abortion. I see it as a last-ditch option for people who really need it, such as rape victims or people who used every form of birth control known to man and still managed to have a baby. I don’t see it as a form of birth control. If you can’t figure out how to put on a condom or take a pill, you probably shouldn’t be having sex anyways. I am pro-choice because I want people to have the option of having an abortion. I’m big on rights and freedoms. Banning abortions is denying people the right to have one, and I can’t abide by that. Besides, outlawing abortion will just lead to a rise in illegal (and thus unsafe because well-trained, upstanding doctors wouldn’t perform banned operations) abortions in back alleys and seedy clinics. If someone really wants (or needs) an abortion, they will get one regardless of what the law says. The amount of illegal drug use in this country should be enough to prove that point, however unfortunate that may be. And what reasons are there for banning abortion? Personal? Moral? Personal and moral beliefs have no place in legislation. They’re there, of course, but they shouldn’t be. Laws should be made on what’s truly good for the people, not what the lawmakers believe to be good.

But are there reasons for opposing abortion other than the obvious moral ones? I can’t think of any. A few days ago, someone told me that there were non-moral reasons, but they neglected to tell me what they were. Typical. They just didn’t expect me to call them on their unfounded argument. Anyways, they could have meant economic reasons. But that falls apart rather quickly as well. It costs less to abort a fetus than to raise a child through 18 years. A first-trimester abortion? Several hundred dollars. Raising a kid from birth to college? A quarter of a million dollars. Ouch. Abortions aren’t going to significantly reduce the workforce, either. Indeed, the number of abortions is growing rapidly and has since the early nineties. But the birthrate has also increased. Since not every person who gets pregnant has an abortion, it’s reasonable to conclude that a fair amount of babies will be born in any given year. And since the majority of these children will grow up healthy and wind up working in some career (be it white- or blue-collar), the workforce will always have a hefty influx of 18-year-olds who were thrown out on their own with a warning to get a job and enough cash to buy a Vespa. So there’s no good economic reason for banning abortions.

Heck, I can’t even think of any other possibilities. Economic was the only one I came up with, and I couldn’t even figure out a good argument for that. So it appears that the only reasons there exist people who label themselves pro-life are moral ones. The main one is that abortion is murder. Fair enough. A fetus is a living being, so aborting it is killing it. But is this wrong, I ask you? Most people don’t find anything wrong with eating a chicken. Few find anything morally reprehensible about exterminating mice. And almost no one objects to stomping on a cockroach when it scurries out from under the washing machine. Chickens, mice, and cockroaches are all living beings. Yet most pro-lifers hold to a double-standard. They might picket an abortion clinic while wearing a leather belt, go home to turkey dinner and yell at a few pro-choicers out the window, and call the Orkin man while carrying the baby they conceived after being raped by their ex-boyfriend. And I bet half of them are in favor of the “war” in Iraq. Double standard.

But, of course, there is a difference, as most of these people would tell you. Fetuses are somehow…”better” than other animals. How so? Because fetuses allegedly have souls. They are human, as if that makes any difference. Humans are animals, and that’s all I’ll say on the subject because I don’t want to drag myself off on a tangent in the middle of my argument. Indeed, fetuses are human. They have human DNA. They exhibit human behavior and have human-like features (in the first and second trimesters, that is; by the third trimester, they’ve become miniature humans in appearance). But does this really make a difference? Again, that’s a moral decision. If you’re like me, you callously say that at this stage, life can easily be created again. It doesn’t matter terribly much. I don’t pride myself on saying that, but it’s how I justify abortions. Either that or I forgo the issue altogether and justify it based on rights. On the other hand, you might hold life very dear, in which case I hope you don’t eat animals and are dead-set against war and the death penalty. Whatever the case, your own reasons probably sound the most right to you, so I don’t even know why I’m bothering to write about it. I had a point, but I lost it amidst my jumbled thoughts. I might come back to it if I find it.

It’s clear the moral issue surrounding abortion will never come to a sufficient compromise. But it’s equally clear that denying people the right to have an abortion is the absolute wrong course of action. There is no single moral standard on which to base laws. And there are plenty of sound reasons to leave the option available to those who need it. I suppose it would be best to leave this up to the individual states, but I fear that many states will go the way of South Dakota and ban abortion outright. Then again, I don’t trust our current federal government with the decision, either. Our dear president has a habit of forcing his morals on the American people, whether it’s for our good or not. It’s a good thing he’s only got two more years, or I’d be afraid for the fate of democracy in this country. Can anyone say “the United Kingdom of America”?

Anyways, I don’t want to start ranting about Bush and his ill-conceived Patriot Act and NCLB (not to mention this “war” on terrorism and our illegal occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq), so I’ll stop now and go to bed. Or something. Maybe I’ll check under my bed for FBI agents…

Sphere: Related Content

Of Catholics and condoms

Friday, April 21st, 2006

Catholics amaze me. I’m sorry if anyone who reads this is Catholic, but your church leaders have got to be the stodgiest old farts who ever managed to reach a position where they can tell people what to do. Take, for instance, the Catholic church’s ban–yes, ban–on condoms. Um…does anyone else fail to see the logic behind that? Apparently, condoms are “evil” and the only method two people should use to avoid pregnancy while still having sex is to not have sex at all. Now, this doesn’t really seem like a good plan to me. People will have sex. It’s what people do. Telling them that they can’t use condoms will only result in one thing: more babies. If they were going to use a condom in the first place, it’s obvious that this is something they don’t want. Ergo, it would be in the world’s favor to allow people to use condoms in order to keep the population level down, especially since the Catholic church refuses to allow single women to adopt. Or something like that.

The Catholic Church will, however, allow limited condom use for couples with HIV/AIDS, to prevent the spread of the disease. Considering that latex condoms are highly effective when it comes to stopping HIV, this seems like a much better idea than mere abstinence. Sex isn’t the only way HIV gets around…

At any rate, this is just one more thing I don’t like about the Catholic church. Again, I apologize to any Catholics who happen across this. It’s just that I prefer to do things my own way. Religion is one thing, complete control of peoples’ life choices is another.

Sphere: Related Content