|
I'm libertarian, but I'm still anti-abortion.
First of all, as a society, it makes no sense to kill entire future demographics. I've read countless articles dealing with the problem of an "aging" population and the lack of numbers in future populations to continue to afford social programs, especially for the elderly. When you average approximately 1.5 million abortions a year in the United States (a conservative number), take that back to Roe V. Wade and then determine that those "children" would now be having children of their own, there is a large portion of the young demographic missing.
Even though I don't think it is necessary, I would be willing to concede the use of abortion when not used as birth control. Being a libertarian I do believe in personal freedom, but with that comes personal responsibility. If you wish to have sex, no matter what protection you may or may not use, it is up to you to be responsible in knowing that there is always a possibilty of having children. If you are not responsible in realizing the outcome of your actions, than that is no excuse for an abortion. And don't give me some crap about bringing a kid into a bad environment. Take any of those kids, and than once they become 18, of legal age, ask them if they would have mind being aborted instead of being brought into such a "bad environment." How many people are really going to choose death over life even in poor circumstances? If a time machine existed, and once you turned 18, someone came up to you and said, "your mother really wanted to abort you, but we wanted to give you the ability to make your own choice...do you mind if we go back and abort you?" What would you choose?
There are also countless double standards when it comes to abortion. We have attempted murder and attempted robbery to name a few charges based on future possibility, probabilty and tendancy. However, when it comes to a pregrant woman, which after syngamy is statistically shown to give birth to a living human a great majority of the time, we have no problems with killing. What makes the difference then, location? If we are able to keep the fetus alive outside the body, does that constitute living, or is it then okay to kill neonates that are unable to survive on their own? And if that is the case, what happens when we are able to bring a fetus to full term from fertilization outside the female body? Will that effectively end abortion, or do we extend things in the opposite manner? A three year old would not be able to survie without adult care and supervision, so is it then okay to "abort" a three year old?
When it comes to the death penatly, it's easy for me. You have all the rights that everyone else enjoys, until you take away another's. When you take away someone's right to life, than guess what, you forfeit your own. An unborn child also has that right, even though it is unable to survive on its own or speak for itself. I guess if you want an analogy it would be like kiling someone in a coma that is guaranteed to come out of it. If Terri Shiavo was guaranteed to come out of her vegetative state in 9 months and make a full recovery, would we have allowed her feeding tube to be pulled?
|
