[General | Cerebral Palsy | Philosophy | Politics | Soccer | Real Ale]
NB: To post a blog comment, simply click on the link at the end of the post that indicate how many comments there currently are.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
As I type, my mother is drawing up a petition against the news that the advertising agency are planning to air TV advertisements giving pregnancy advice before the 2100 watershed.
You can read the planned news here
You can read news on anti-abortion agency being against this proposal here.
And a heartwarming mother’s perspective on the blogosophere on the nature of abortion, here.
There are various positions we can argue from; for and against. The debate rages and comes to light in this blog in light of my own Catholic beliefs and my philosophical background. They are, it seems to be at odds and it is a very emotional issue. So, what’s the fuss about?
The sanctity of life is a moral imperative for Catholics. It would be quiet controversial to suppose that murder is acceptable. Abortion and the morning-after pill equals murder. Condoms and the pill for contraceptive use prevents the possibility of life, the natural order of things. Abstinence is the answer - STIs are avoided and babies can be raised in a traditional, nuclear family.
The reality is different: STIs are on the increase, media sensationalization of sex and the acceptance of sexual promiscuity is clearly the problem and we must respect the rights of the mother and the social circumstances that lead to use of contraception and abortion methods. A last resort, is needed to prevent the breakdown of society and we must provide for the circumstances in abortion and condom use is sensible and necessary.
Speaking with my philosopher’s hat on, it is not disputed that abortion is abhorrent, the destruction of life. I would have to agree with BBC Mark Easton’s blog:
“What stops teen pregnancies: condoms or family meals? I suspect that the problem is more down to lifestyle than to lack of information.” [Read blog here]
This hits the nail on the head and fits into both arguments - the conservative, religious view and the liberal, pro-choice view. So what’s the answer?
The reality must be accepted - that we exist in a society where sex is apparent, and yet it seems that discussion of sex and sexual ethics is a ‘taboo subject’. It is not the place of government is legislate what is right and wrong on this personal issue, but some guidance and acceptance in the difference of opinions should allow people to make a rational choice. Perhaps this is too philosophical to contemplate, maybe no society can become one-dimensional in its moral directives. Yet if the education is there, condoms and abortions can be used for the more rational and acceptable means: Preventing spread of STIs, Family planning, abortion to protect the life and welfare of the mother and child. To resolve this dilemma of ‘what is right’ here is an age-old question that I cannot answer. Something to consider…
PS: You can read my personal opinion in the comments section here.