A Thought

http://www.untilabortionends.com/en-us/default.aspx

There’s a website called Until Abortion Ends in which people submit stories or videos about themselves telling what they will give up until abortion ends. I couldn’t find any information regarding what the constraints are about the ‘abortion ending’ part of the pledge, perhaps it’s up to each person depending on where they live or it’s just a US in A phenomenon or a worldwide group. I’m not sure. There aren’t very many people involved in this…movement…, at least not that many on the site if that’s the case.

I can’t see what this will accomplish. It sounds like a faith issue, perhaps, of which I have none.

To me, pro-life means infringing on the rights of others, forcing them into a choice, one already made for them. Pro-choice means not infringing on the rights of others, allowing each to make a decision based on their own beliefs. Based on the tenets of anarchism, forcing someone to do something is always unacceptable, which I believe. This is precisely the implication of pro-life, that is, forcing someone to do something (forcing a set of beliefs on one). Now, if someone makes the statement “abortion is wrong”, they are simply stating an opinion (abortion is wrong for me), one that can be turned into a universal principle (abortion is an unacceptable act) which they, almost always, try and force others to abide by. Similarly, if someone says “abortion is right”, they are stating an opinion (abortion is right for me), which can also be turned into a universal principle (abortion is an acceptable act) which they, almost always, try and force others to abide by.

If the principle ‘abortion is an unacceptable act’ is taken as a universal, then abortion is no more. Interestingly, if the principle ‘abortion is an acceptable act’ is taken as a universal, then abortion can or cannot be performed. It encompasses the first principle, in a way. Everyone can apply the second principle, whether they believe in abortion or not, but not everyone can apply the first principle. The second principle doesn’t infringe on the first because it is not forcing anyone to accept a principle. It might seem that way since it, itself, is a principle, one that everyone follows, but it is not restricting either party’s beliefs, which the first one does. If one disagrees with abortion, all is well. If one agrees, all is well. So, pro-choice seems a more viable option.

It gets much more complicated when religion is used, since those who are religious and believe that ‘abortion is an unacceptable act’ generally cannot agree with it’s use, regardless of anyone else’s belief, or situation. The second principle, would be unacceptable to them.

And it gets even more complicated when you throw in contraception, religious rights, women’s rights, bigoted activists etc.

Just a thought on abortion.

Short URL for this post: http://tmblr.co/Z3iNrwHGsgL6