Eff's Rambles (Archive)

10/22/2005

Abortion Debate and War

I am pro choice on abortion. I do not like the act, but few do, so far as my impression of public sentiment goes. I prefer to trust in womens' choices on the difficult decision. For me, the most I would want from a girlfriend or wife whom I impregnate is to know if the decision is to have an abortion before the. My permission is not what I want sought. I just want to be respected and have a chance to come to acceptance with it, especially if their choice is abortion.

That said, I have seen some people claim there is hypocrisy in the position of being for a given war while also being against abortion. The argument is that many innocents die in war, so why are not those innocents as deserving of protection from war as a fetus is from abortion? The premise there is that all life is sacred and must be protected and preserved as much as possible.

The argument is correct on the surface. Looking from it, there is moral inconsistency. But there is a problem; a failure to make an important distinction.

The difference is what can be served not by, but despite the deaths.

Abortions, hypothetically speaking, could serve in the long term to result in negative and positive consequences for the societies inwhich they are committed. But that is without consideration of myriad possible reasons for either type of consequence, thus from that basis any contention that abortion will have a particular result is incorrect; plausible alternative reasons should not be excluded nor ignored before disproving their plausibility. The same holds true for the deaths or murders of people in and around war zones.

But war, while not not able to promise to resolve all matters current and future, can still serve a purpose, in the short term. That is the proper basis for judgement of any war second to the ethical nature of their justifications. This means that, while not wanted, deaths of innocents resulting from wars might not make the wars inviable.

For some people, no war, no violence, can be justified. But I am not a pacifist. I do not dismiss the possibility that a war can be done for a just reason. And, pragmatically, the continuation of a war could be necessary for reasons beyond the originals for a war.

So the difference is this: In the micro sense, abortions serve a purpose, in the macro, they might, but from a broadly hypothetical basis. But in the micro and macro, war can serve to result in something positive. Indeed, more lives could be saved if the previous existing situation was more deadly, statistically speaking, than the war situation. Even if or when war's micro and macro successes are equally hypothetical to that of abortion's, there might exist an urgency of an encompassing nature for many that compels a war to come into being or continue. Abortion opponents have difficulty, or cannot, seeing when and how abortion could result in something positive for many. But some of them, and not only them, can conceive of war being able to save more lives than it ultimately takes. Can abortion do this to an equal degree?

2 Comments:

  • There is also a difference between supporting one war and being a warmonger. They hypocrisy of a pro-lifer supporting a war is only evident if that person supports all wars for any reason. But some wars are justifiable...would anyone have a problem with a pro-lifer who supported a revolutionary war against an oppressive regime? I doubt it. They hypocrisy I see amongst pro-lifers who believe all life is sacred and must be protected at all costs is when they justify abortions in the case of rape, possible death of the mother if pregancy goes to term or if a baby will be born with a host of health problems. If they find these reasons acceptable causes for abortion, then they are not pro-lifers. They are pro-choice like you and me.

    By Blogger The SeaWitch, at 10/23/2005 03:25:00 AM  

  • There is also a difference between supporting one war and being a warmonger. They hypocrisy of a pro-lifer supporting a war is only evident if that person supports all wars for any reason. But some wars are justifiable...would anyone have a problem with a pro-lifer who supported a revolutionary war against an oppressive regime? I doubt it. They hypocrisy I see amongst pro-lifers who believe all life is sacred and must be protected at all costs is when they justify abortions in the case of rape, possible death of the mother if pregancy goes to term or if a baby will be born with a host of health problems. If they find these reasons acceptable causes for abortion, then they are not pro-lifers. They are pro-choice like you and me.

    By Blogger The SeaWitch, at 10/23/2005 05:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


 

Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click