Several hours ago I was fulfilling my daily hunt for that much needed second cup of blazing java, especially excited in the midst of the brutally chill weather. Driving towards my all-time favorite coffee shop, I begin following a red pick-up sporting a Virginia license plate. Cruising along I notice the Virginians bumper stickers: “The cost of abortion is one human life” and next to it “It’s a child, not a choice”. Annoyed, I continue behind the car in attempt to get a glance at the driver – a middle aged male. This got me thinking. I’m well aware of the fact that southerners have a more conservative outlook, especially matters highly controversial to the church, but does this fellow really think stickers will impact my decision to obtain an abortion? Is the advertising of this man’s no-choice position justified? Remotely, his opinion is irrelevant simply because he is a man without the ability to become impregnated.
I mentioned before the commonly held notion that the south is much more conservative with regards to abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research due heavy religious influence. The typical pro-life argument claims something along the lines that upon the moment of conception a fetus is considered a human with full moral consideration and the ten commandments clearly states it is always immoral, and therefore wrong, to kill. This argument is flawed in its consideration of what constitutes a human life – despite the implied potential. Society does not grant rights to the unborn in any context, separate from this matter. Additionally, personhood requires a degree of independence, brain activity or some form of consciousness according to numerous Philosophers. The Utilitarian would decide the morality of this issue by considering the situation of the mother and her desires. Logically, if a female does not want to have a child and is denied an abortion, her parenting will reflect a degree of resent. This will impact the welfare and development of the child.
Now, this Virginian man identifies as a pro-life supporter. But is the term “pro-life” exclusive to the welfare of the unborn, or can it be applied to children born into extreme poverty? Or a child born by two heroin addicts? These situations occur everyday and innocent children are unknowingly born into conditions unsuitable for a new born or any child to be frank. If really concerned with quality of life – as moral beings we have the duty to provide the most adequate childhood possible. We must embrace abortions in circumstances in which a female becomes pregnant but is emotionally, financially and mentally unfit to parent this child. Ultimately, the future of humanity is in the hands of the unborn and aging youth. Why not create a standard for new born conditions?
Psychology of a Realist 