So, I've been doing some thinking and research.
My original justification for being pro choice was that if every single unwanted pregnency got aborted, the foster system would run out of kids to take care of so they would have to rescue kids from elsewhere to keep their business alive.
Leading Causes Of Death In Africa - WorldAtlas states that only around 284K Africans die of starvation a year and worldwide this number probably isn't much higher as Africa is the only continent in the world where extreme poverty is significant (134-eb9a-51e7.jpg (1600×990) (howmuch.net)). This is a far cry from the 9 million people I previously thought died and I think the majority of these starvation deaths are from adults who should be independent. Trading with Africa would help reduce the death count by starvation due to more trade.
There is the claim that an unborn baby isn't a human being and to an extent this is correct. I wouldn't be arguing that a zygote or an embryo is a human being and I would claim that pro life people, especially pro life females (if they believe a zygote is a human being) aren't consistent with this belief unless they are going out of their way to save zygotes from experimentation by volunteering to be impregnanted with zygotes. The only people that agree to be impregnanted by artificial insemination are people who have an infertile partner and have no choice if they want to be a Mom. If a pro life female wanted to be principled with their pro life belief, they could never have sex with their partner and get all their babies via artificial insemination and they could due this as much as they could to save as many zygotes as possible from experimentation if they believe a zygote is a human being. But you don't see people doing this and a zygote cell resembles cancer which also contains the DNA of a human being, so calling a zygote or embryo a human being seems kind of silly. Pro lifers will claim that a zygote is the start of a human being, but it doesn't matter what something could be; it merely matters what something already is. Just as you don't treat somebody like a criminal until they actually become a criminal, you don't treat someone like a human being until they are actually a human being.
However, a fetus is a different story. A fetus not only has the DNA to become a human, but their cells are specialized unlike that of a cancer cell. Calling a 6 week old fetus cancer I would argue is dehumanizing since I fail to see how they aren't human. They have the DNA, their cells are specialized, so they are human.
However, there are other organisms that are obviously humans that you don't have to take care of. I don't have to adopt a kid even though a kid is a human being. However, I think one difference here that I think is relevant is that I never created the kid, so initially the kid isn't under my responsibility. The only way I can get rid of my responsibility to a kid is if I transfer it to a consenting person. A new mother can easily transfer responsibility of the kid to a foster agency and they will take the kid. But this comes to the question, should you be responsible to take care of a kid without your consent? To this, I would look for an analogy; deadbeat dads. Everybody that I know believes that a deadbeat dad should take care of his responsibilities to a kid that he creates. If a male is forced to take care of kids because he created them unless he agrees with his wife to set the kids up for adoption (and even pro choicers agree with this), then we have to apply the same standard to a female. Yes; a female endures stress and pain from pregnency, but a male also has to sacrifice so much stress and finances from pregnency as well. If pregnency was easy, you would see millionaires having like 12 kids, but males and females both take a toll from pregnency. The female endures pain, the male has to make economic sacrifices since he has to provide for a wife since she often will take time off. He also has to endure a stressed out wife for 9 months. I believe the female sacrifices more from pregnency, but both genders sacrifice a lot for a kid.
There are the exception cases (primarily rape, maternal life, and fetal defects). I think almost everyone can get behind abortion if the mother needs her life saved; I don't see how someone can be fine with sacrificing a mother's life to save an unborn baby. Rape is tough. There is a 31% chance that the mother will develop PTSD from rape. The ideologue pro lifers will argue that a fetus concieved from rape still shouldn't be aborted, but all they focus on is the fetus; never the female who pro lifers expect to sacrifice whatever it takes to save a fetus through sexual activity that was not her fault. Making her be pregnant from something she did not consensually take the risk for would be a lot like forcing the pregnant female to sacrifice whatever it takes to save even one life in Africa. The creation of a rape concieved fetus and the existence of a life in Africa was not something that isn't the fault of the female, yet pro lifers expect her to do whatever it takes to save the fetus and not the kid in Africa? I'm not saying you should be forced to give to people in Africa, but because of that belief, I can't get behind banning abortions in cases of rape. As for fetal defects, I don't think someone should be killed for being defected. This is akin to killing all retarted people.
To what extent should abortion be allowed? A zygote or embryo isn't a human being, but a fetus is and you become a fetus at about 6 weeks into pregnency. There are times such as saving maternal life that abortion is acceptable. I can't get behind banning abortions with rape. Here are the conditions for which I would be fine with legalized abortion:
- Unrestricted until 6 weeks
- Allowed in situations of rape until 20 weeks
- Allowed to save maternal life until birth.
Any abortions outside of these parameters should be punished with around 50 hours of community service.
Thoughts?
