Opinion: Abortion debate still divisive
Certain issues exist that are divisive and beaten to death by the constant commentary on them. Abortion is one such issue.
In Texas, a recent bill concerning abortion practice was passed that made the law one of the most restrictive to getting an abortion in the country. Some of the requirements of the law are, “...doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they’re providing abortion services, and usage controls on RU486, a drug that induces abortions,” reports Dana Ford of CNN. A lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Austin by Planned Parenthood in reaction to those provisions highlighted from the bill. The U.S. District Judge, Lee Yeakel, struck down key parts of the new legislation.
The admitting privileges portion was struck down because, “...[it] places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her,” Judge Yeakel said. Yet he upheld certain restrictions concerning the use of RU486 which still requires “...strict use under Food and Drug Administration protocol and mandatory follow-up visits remain in place,” according to CNN.This issue is far from just fading into the background.The pro-life movement has been characterized by some as being full of old, fundamental Christians who hate women, while the pro-choice movement has been characterized as “feminazis” who just want to kill babies. Both these identifications are really a sad attempt by the other side to try to make the opposition look so radical that no one will support them.The issue is far more nuanced, though. On the pro-life side, the main concern is whether or not the fetus is considered a human at conception. If so, then abortion is immoral because a human is being killed. On the pro-choice side, the main concern is the welfare of the woman, and whether they have control over their own bodily process. I don’t think that the main concern is whether the fetus is human or the ownership of people’s own bodies, but rather another moral dilemma concerning the relationship between human problems and technological solutions.Is it moral for technology to fix all of humanity’s perceived problems? Many have advocated as such, including head Google engineer Ray Kurzweil, but is there a problem with such a view? That the only solution to our problems is a technological solution?This is a question that should not only be asked in terms of abortion, but also in things like global warming and sex change operations. It almost seems like these solutions are just too simple for these extremely complicated problems. It is humanity’s biggest flaw, not believing we are bound by anything, that we are completely free from all influence.
This allows us to do whatever we want. Is abortion really a proper solution to the problem of unwanted female pregnancy? Is this problem a physical or a psychological one? It definitely is a physical problem that sometimes concerns the welfare of the women’s bodily health, but other abortions concern her socio-economic and psychological condition. Shouldn’t we first try to understand those socio-economic and psychological drives before we jump to the conclusion that abortion is the only solution?