Let's begin with the dark perspective on death. Why the gloom over doom? Perhaps it's the loss of potential, the end to the joys of life, and the separation of the departed from the living. But these ideas imply harmony with those around you, an abundance of joy over sorrows, and the possibility to progress or to do anything of importance. Herein lies the problem. The grievance of death hinges upon the satisfaction as well as the significance of life. Death can only be negative if life is positive in contrast, so one must view life positively for this to be true. Life, I would then argue, is not inherently positive.
But that is another topic altogether. For now I want to focus on abortions and suicides, and perhaps other ideas if they come to mind as I write this. Let us take from the two previous paragraphs that life must be good for death to be bad and that life is not inherently good, and we'll work from there. You might say it's a weak foundation for my next arguments, but bear with it. It'll make sense when I talk about the nature of life another time.
Abortions are good. Now before I continue, I should say that I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice. So hold your angry baby-loving flaming for now. There are legitimate reasons for a pregnant woman to abort her unborn child. Financial reasons, inadequate parenting skills, Pharaoh killing infants again, the list goes on. The counterargument then is that an unborn individual is robbed the right to live without even having a chance to protest.
Yet is it not better to experience death devoid of pain and awareness, than to die in a hostile environment? This is of course under the assumption that the reason to abort is for the sake of the child due to external factors beyond the parents' control. Naysayers would then shout out vehemently, "where do you draw the line?! Maybe they'll live to be the next Albert Einsteins or Ghandis or Kylie Minogues!" True. But what are the chances of that? And if they do, so what? Besides, there's also a chance they could become the next Hitlers or bin Ladens or Marilyn Mansons. Lot of good they've done in their lifetimes. Despite these arguments, however, what is perhaps more important is the welfare of the child in question. If the fetus is given the chance to develop fully in a relatively hostile surrounding, the kid will have to experience a rough childhood before reaching potentially awesome status, and that's not even guaranteed. If it was my choice, I'd abort that sucker right off the bat. And that leads to my next argument.
Everyone exists solely based on his or her parents' or at least mother's choice. The poor soul never had a say in it. If we have the right to decide whether a child should come into existence or not, would it not only be fair to have the right to decide whether it dies? Some would argue that aborting a fetus effectively kills an individual's potential to live, to grow, to inspire, to change the world, and whatever. Then it may as well be argued that those with flat tummies need to start making babies, because choosing not to have a child has the same effect as aborting. Either way, we are still not respecting the child's opinion. But how can we if the child doesn't exist? Wouldn't there be a lack of opinion if there's a lack of consciousness, and especially a lack of existence? I agree fully on that point. But once you conceive and a baby grows in you, it is irrefutable that the choice is founded on selfishness, and morality comes into play. I'm aware that rape would be a different scenario, but that only supports the idea that abortions are good. Who wants surprise pregnancies?
A lot of things have been said so far and I'm sure many readers are already offended at this point. But let's summarize what we have so far:
- Death isn't inherently bad
- Life isn't inherently good
- Abortions are good
- Chances are life will suck
- Abortions eliminate life potential, but so does not getting pregnant
- Having kids is selfish on the parents' part
A few lines up I said selfishness breeds babies; the parents are the only ones who decide whether to have children or not, with accidental pregnancies being possibly the most common exception. But even then the transference of sperm to womb, or at least sperm through the vagina wrapped or otherwise, is often intentional. If you take that risk of putting it in, since no contraceptive is fail-proof, you are aware that the female may become pregnant. So once again, who consulted the child-to-be? No one had the choice to be unborn or aborted. If we had no freedom in our creation, is it not only fair to have the freedom to choose when we are mentally able to make such a decision? People always talk about the freedom to live, but too often neglect the freedom to die.
Honestly, a death only affects those around the deceased. A person's life can cause more damage to society than a person's death. Even if the person was a suicide bomber, it's a one-time thing and the dude or dudette can't repeat his or her crimes. But as long as the person lives, there's no telling how much more damage can be done.
The general perception of suicide is that it's the coward's way out. I beg to differ. It is said that if life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. So if I threw you in prison, do you just make the best of it in your little cell and consider yourself courageous for resisting to rot away until the very end? Ef that! You break out of prison! That's the brave thing to do, not remaining in an incarcerated state without resisting. If life sucks, you break away from it. What's the shame in that?
I think I've exhausted my points. Hope you've enjoyed reading. Once again, I'm not responsible for your thoughts and or actions as results of reading my blog.
meh...
ReplyDelete