I am Pro-Life, sort of...

 I am Pro-Life, Sort of...

 It is certainly not surprising news that the United States always has a vehement and divisive topic to quibble over. Over the course of the last decades, the country has been split between those who advocate for the rights of a pluricellular zygote and those who advocate for the rights of negligent women who haphazardly put a bun in the oven. Since it touches upon the life of a creature to the fullest scope of the word, it will always be a highly delicate theme to broach for many. 

 As a person who has mainly been known as a kind of mediator between two radical opposites on such controversial topics, I do not momentarily envision making an exception for this one. I have always endorsed the comprehension of ethics that seeks the middle point between two extremely opposite sides in parallel to Aristotle's Golden Mean. According to the illustrious philosopher's point of view, the exact middle point between excess and deficiency unexceptionably marks the ethical stance. For instance, if you act disproportionately recklessly in the face of a challenging situation, the excess of courage will lead you to death whether it be in a figurative way or not. On the other hand, the deficiency of courage called cowardice will lead you to nothing but a cringing defeat. Nevertheless, you will always vanquish the impediments that will appear in your life in case you are able to make a judicious move, objectively evaluating your position and sensitively juxtaposing it with that of the stumbling block that poses an obstacle for you. Therefore, it has always been logical for me to fairly scrutinise two sides that confront and endeavour to position myself in the middle. On this issue as well, I opt for such an intermediate position. 

 First and foremost, I would like to begin my argumentation with the delineation of the vocabulary as usual. In the country of superfluous but violent debates, the US, there is this almost aeonian debate about whether abortion is morally acceptable or not. As for its definition, abortion is an intentional and medically assisted miscarriage that is carried out by a medical expert at the request of the pregnant woman. It is a procedure often resorted to in case of financial insufficiency for the would-be baby's raising. The proponents of intentional and medically assisted miscarriage are designated as pro-choice and those who firmly object as pro-life, because they stand for the rights of an unborn potential form of life.

 In this context, it must have been self-evident that the division engendered by the question manifests religious properties just as many other current issues. Pro-life people argue that life begins at inception, therefore abortion constitutes a murder that can be conducted on a legal basis whereas pro-choice people put forth the argument that a child signifies responsibility, and no one should be obliged to assume such an intimidating burden. What the religious perspective misses on the issue is that you don't have to adhere to a religious belief in order to emphasize the sacrality of human life; on the other hand, what the libertarian perspective fails to comprehend is that you cannot carelessly prostitute yourself around and deny the consequences that result from it. Turning back to the critique of the religious perspective you asked me whether human life is sacred or not, I would unwaveringly respond that all forms of life are sacred. We are a quirky species amongst many that have existed on Earth, but we are the only ones that evolved further past being cat food and climbed up the food chain to the dismay of others. In this regard, we always perpetrate a grave sacrilege against nature by slaughtering a mind-blowing number of creatures "from all walks of nature." Consequently, we are all daily murderers from this perspective with the vegetables we pluck up the soil or the cattle whose throats we slit. In my own humble opinion, this doesn't constitute murder per se, since unexceptionably everything has to kill to survive either for food or for security. Thus, I do not regard things we as animals have to do as crimes. Simply put, stuff happens. As long as abortion is decided upon out of necessity such as poverty or not being ready for parenthood, I reckon it to be better for a child to never be born into a family where he will be either "under-loved or under-supported."

 Contrarily, I believe in the conscience. As Victor Hugo says, conscience is our God within. It dictates, notwithstanding the influence of society on our approach to morality, what is morally good and what is wicked. Taking into consideration the fundamental values of the modern world we have built for the last several thousand years, I am well aware of the importance of liberty, which is why I will somewhat unexpectedly plead for the freedom of abortion. Nonetheless, it doesn't certainly imply that everyone should go to consult their doctor when there is an unintended pregnancy to go through an abortion. This is neither morally acceptable in the sense that you end the life of a potential baby, which basically signifies that you punish him for being conceived during your intimate moments as if he/she interrupted you in a meddlesome fashion, nor economically feasible on grounds of budgetary reasons. A government cannot disburse its budget only for its citizens' interruption of pregnancy. Moreover, governments need babies because people are a source of influence and power when aptly managed. As a consequence of all these arguments I have mentioned above, I defend that every person should be free to request an abortion on condition that we implement necessary precautionary measures intended for the education of the youth on this matter so that they can be educated as responsible people and apply preventive measures during sex in order to not give rise to a new "intrusive" form of life, which would innocently be condemned to death. For instance, governments could add seminaries on sexuality to the syllabus of their education system. It would work in the preponderant majority of the world, though not everywhere, or they could promote other ways of information such as advertisements and brochures even if I reckon them to be of lesser efficacy.

 In conclusion, I should briefly state that abortion should be a right on the grounds of many possible ways a pregnancy might occur such as rape. However, I fully plead in favor of sexual education, awareness-raising campaigns, and other courses of action to this effect, since no one should be precociously murdered in the womb of their mother. 

Thank you for reading,

Athel.