Disclaimer: The following is taken from various Internet sources, and contains religious inclinations. It does not aim to impose any religious ideologies.
A man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?
There is a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she is pregnant with her 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending abortion?
The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The first is blind, the second is dead. The third is deaf and the fourth has TB. The mother finds she is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
A teenage girl is pregnant. She is not married. Her fiancée is not the father of the baby, and he is very upset. Would you recommend an abortion?
If you have answered “yes” to any of these situations:
In the first case you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists of the 19th century.
In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven.
In the third case you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.
In the fourth case you would have recommended the murder of Jesus Christ.
I think there is some significance in the fact that most of the unique cases you've raised here are very much of historical and past figures. Back in those days, the world economy was not as well-developed as it is now, and there was indeed little development and progress as compared to today, leading to a lack of education among the general public, among others. This lack of education would mean that many families would choose to go with their religious beliefs of not killing a life and aborting the baby (if they even had the technology to do so back then!) and not give much thought to their current financial/social situations and weigh the pros/cons, before deciding on whether it's worth keeping the baby and providing him/her with a less than ideal or perfect life (e.g. poor family situations etc.)
ReplyDeleteIn this present-day context, no one, not even a medical professional can make a decision on whether such situations call for an abortion for the mother's or the family's benefit without first understanding the full picture better. On face value, I would think that should the (underage) pregnancy put the mother's health, life in danger or places unnecessary burdens and stress on the mother or family, and/or the family is unable to provide for the baby to its fullest, one can consider an abortion. I think even someone taking a pro-choice stance wouldn't want to recommend an abortion in any of these cases, as we ultimately still recognize that a life is a life, but in dire circumstances (sometimes even life-threatening), it might be in the best interests of the couple. Personally, abortion isn't like the first-choice solution to these problems.
However, one shouldn't dismiss abortion as robbing the world of one more great talented person with the capacity to contribute much to this world. A talent is not talented by birth. While one may have the natural affinity or skills in one's chosen field, allowing for greater progress and development, faster than his peers, without hard work and determination, talent doesn't mean anything. A talent is like an unpolished gem - through effort and a proper upbringing/environment the gem will be polished, and its potential unleashed. Each and everyone one of us is like that unpolished gem. All of us have the capacity to overcome difficulties and become some talented, an important figure etc.
A good piece of reflection, Sean. I like how you have probed further via another perspective, that of time. Indeed, things change with time, and so do contexts.
ReplyDeleteYes, many pro-life advocates do also see the need to judge each abortion case based on its situation. The line blurs in situations such as the definition of "burden" or "stress".
In today's context, where pragmatism and hedonism prevails, many place greater importance on other issues such as social rejection/financial burden of single motherhood, stemmed chances of career advancement, enjoyment of a life unburdened by child-bearing, etc. over the life of an unborn foetus that they cannot yet see.
Yes, you need determination and hardwork -remember our Rafflesian attitude of fortitude? If you have a terribly high IQ, and you don't study and gain knowledge for your IQ to be put to use, no amount of IQ can make you smarter than the average Joe. So, I guess another way of putting forward their case is that abortion robs the world of an unpolished gem, that has potential to be one of the brightest gem on earth!
Actually I don't get the point of this passage. Is it trying to say that abortion should not be advocated in all circumstances?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then I find their method of justifying their argument (by naming all these "awesome" people that abortion would have robbed the world of) frankly quite laughable.
Did the parents in those situations know that their child would become someone big in the future? NO!
However, they still wanted to keep the baby despite their difficulties without knowledge of what the baby might become in the future.
These parents' decision to keep their respective babies was solely due to personal choice.
Whether or not the baby grows up in the future to become 'somebody' is irrelevant to the parents.
Replace all the famous examples provided with the average Joe, and you will see that the author's arguments become a lot less convincing.
Very interesting view point Martin! I do agree with you, how the argument seems so much more stronger by using "awesome" people as cases.
ReplyDeleteIf they had used an example like Jack the Ripper or Hitler, I think the effect would be opposite!
I suppose the point the author was trying to make was not that abortion should not be advocated in ALL circumstances, but that it should not be taken as lightly as many people tend to do today.
If such contexts were placed in a modern day situation, the rights of the mother to an abortion would be upheld. But are we forgetting the moral conservatism and fundamentalism of the past, coupled with technological difficulties? Perhaps it would be a good idea to remain with our conservative ideals, as sometimes certain changes MUST be abhorred let they become too much of a negative influence. I recommend the reading of "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley to support my conservative views, which many people would dispute as irrelevant to an ever-changing society where change is an everyday thing and ought to be accepted. However, it grows increasingly clear that with the increasing audacity of the reduced crime, we MUST return to our conservative morals and search for what has become of this sad world that we live in. This may have turned into a semi-political rant, but I strongly believe that most things in the world are related to politics and the economics of human nature.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, wink wink Martin.