The strongest argument in favour of abortion is the argument that it's merciful. Whether it's ever right to take life is always a moral conundrum, but even people who are strongly against abortion are generally sympathetic to this case.
(Leonardo da Vinci sketch of a
foetus in the womb)
It's thought a child will be born severely handicapped, to the extent that its life will only be misery. Or a foetus is deformed to the extent that it won't reach full term, or if it does the child won't survive very long once born. In circumstances like these it can be a lesser evil to end the pregnancy. In order to shorten any suffering that might be endured by the child.
Again, it's not easy to say what is truly right or wrong, and personally I'm not entirely sure what I would do as a parent in such a situation. I hope I'm never in that position. And of course every circumstance is unique, so it's difficult to draw lines and make blanket judgements. I can be fairly confident though that nearly all parents in such situations are heartbroken, and are thinking purely about what is right for their unborn child. What is best, or perhaps least worst, ..and nothing else.
This is how it should be. Parents love the unborn child. It is a precious life, and they try to do what they think (and hope) is right in its interests. Even if that means ending its life prematurely so it can avoid any needless suffering.
This however is quite different to abortion for wider social reasons:
"There are too many people on Earth."
"I'm putting my career first."
"We're not ready to start a family yet."
"We can't afford to have more children."
"Etc."
With all these examples the decision isn't made solely with regard to the interests of the precious being inside the womb. It's made for wider reasons. Reasons that are in the interest of the wider group.
An otherwise healthy foetus - that would've went on to live a normal human life - is sacrificed for the greater good. That is: for other people.
[Of course, people will often use the expression that it's only a "potential human life." However, all future life is only potential. I will potentially live another 50 years if I'm lucky, but if someone murders me that potential goes away. So what's the difference? Well, the reply often comes: "But a foetus is only cells - it doesn't suffer".
Okay, so what if someone murders me peacefully in my sleep tonight, in a way that causes no suffering to me? My potential years ahead are gone, and I didn't suffer. So again, what's the difference?
(And this is assuming that the countless abortions that take place are completely without suffering of course.)]
Anyway, you've probably guessed by now that I'm very much against abortion for wider social reasons. It's an act of sacrifice in my opinion, and I think it's wrong.
This brings me to another point in fact; and one that's often lost on people on all sides of this debate. You can deem something morally wrong, yet also deem it lawful. Just because you view abortion (in my case abortion for social reasons) as morally wrong, it doesn't mean that you therefore must usurp the power over that decision from a pregnant woman.
You can believe it's a woman's right to choose and believe it's morally wrong.
These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Personally I'm happy for there to be a balance between the mother's and the child's rights as far as the law is concerned. Obviously I don't believe people should have the right to abort babies far gone into pregnancy, but at the same time I can respect a woman's right to make such a decision up to a certain point in the pregnancy ..no matter how morally wrong I think it is that she's exercised that choice.
So I think we often get lost in the legal debate, and forget that we as individuals are entitled to have and to express our own moral viewpoints.
I'm not writing this to remove anyone's rights. I'm writing this to chastise people for the way they've exercised them.
This finally brings me to the title of this article.
Euthanasia, or assisted dying, is a very similar issue, and again, the best argument for it is that of mercy. That it's an act of kindness to help end someone's needless suffering. Like the argument for abortion at the start of this, it's an argument that everyone can sympathise with. No one wants to see unnecessary suffering, and few would hold it against someone if they sincerely helped a dying person to pass the final threshold of life more gently. Even those that are strongly against the idea in principle.
But..
..just look at how this sympathy has been abused with abortion.
How can we as a society be trusted to not take advantage of, or stretch, euthanasia laws for wider social reasons as well? Look at how readily we abort babies for these reasons.
In many ways it's been easier with abortion, as women's rights have been used as a wedge; - a counterbalance against the rights of the child. So it's a slightly more complex issue to navigate, as it concerns the rights of two separate, but intimately connected humans. It's not hard to imagine how euthanasia laws could likewise lead to a slippery slope too though. With the concerns of wider society overlapping so readily with the circumstances of the individual needing care.
People say "Of course we won't misuse this - it'll always be used purely in the interests of the person dying."
..but you already misuse abortion. It is rarely used in the interests of the child.
How on Earth can you be trusted with more leeway.
