We just heard a good deal of interesting rhetoric in the third presidential debate last night. Clinton's main line of argument was that she did not believe that the government should make the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy, but that this decision should be in the hands of women and their families.
Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:
There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.
Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.
Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.
For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.
Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:
There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.
Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.
Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.
For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.
