Legalizing an act doesn’t eliminate its moral implications. Allowing the choice of abortion prevents the degenerate possibilities that would arise from its banishment. Women could still have abortions if faced with a pregnancy that they weren’t able to deal with. Providing a safe means to do so demonstrates an invested interest in the welfare of those women, rather than leaving them to attempt to deal with it on their own. It is legal because it is unfair to women who want to choose that route to have to find an alternate means to accomplish it; whether that be self induced, which is extremely hazardous, or traveling to another country to have the procedure done, which many cannot afford, thus disenfranchising them.
Forcing a woman to forgo a pregnancy would develop an array of hazardous societal implications that are eliminated by providing the means to reject the option of abortion. The debate is further complicated due to the fact that it is solely a woman’s issue, regardless of the role the father may have chosen to play. Rather than disenfranchising women, the option of a choice relieves such pressures.
There is regulation of it. Personal responsibility for one’s actions would be lost if free rein or strict banishment were given for drug use, alcohol use, gambling, or anything else that a religious doctrine finds morally reprehensible. Imprisoning women for having an abortion won’t eliminate the need or use of the option, and doing so likely could also criminalize the father of the child, thus creating additional complications for the judicial system by forcing him to face the legal ramifications of the abortion as well. Potential has no basis in the argument, as it is much more likely to plague humanity with problems rather than provide a potential means to solve them through the unplanned fruition of a life.
A concrete stance on the issue is not tangible and it’s suggestion is delusional.Powered by Sidelines