The case for abortion is rather simplistic when you put on the modern ball cap. It's all based on bodily autonomy, that no one but the female can ultimately choose to either have the baby or abort it.
The same line of reasoning goes for artificial birth control where the avoidance of pregnancy is the main concern with the avoidance of STD's a distant second. All of this is under the slogan of a woman's "'right" and "choice." This later transitions into women's "healthcare." By not supporting "choice" you're upholding institutional sexism, so the narrative goes.
I'll take this premise further - much further. What if, and I believe it's been advancing already, that one can learn about their future child's mental and physical health before it is fully formed int he woman's uterus. What if the child is non-straight -say the child will grow up to be a bisexual or a homosexual, that is if certain prenatal environments are found to support the "born that way" narrative, and if the parents do not want their child to be "born that way," wouldn't that be reasons enough to abort? The suicide rate for non-straights are higher than straights. Or what if the child will be born with certain physical deformities or conditions like ectrodactyly (claw/cleft hand) or Down Syndrome? Sound grounds for abortion?
If the field of medicine can turn into Gattaca, where the parents can find out the potential illnesses, disorder and deformities their child is prone to then all the better, right? We can construct a fetus with the very best qualities of the parents. A below average boy, without genetic manipulation, might be met with a less bright future than if the parents would turn to genetic manipulation to produce an average boy with a possible brighter future.
To oppose the abortion of the LGBT would be just moralizing, afterall, it is the woman's body and under the concept of body autonomy her sovereignty reigns supreme. It's her choice. Same with any other reason a woman wants to abort the "goo." It would be one step to save the earth from over population. To save the earth from harmful carbon gases.
What if my future wife and I decide that we want our children to have what we would consider "the best" qualities of each of us? We'd want grandchildren as well so we'd opt for a straight only child. Any "goo" that is reported to be LGBT would be axed. Some parents might not care or think it's wonderful, but this non of their business. We'll conduct the process and attribute the attributes the way we see fit. What if the "goo" shows signs of retardation? Axe the living shit out of it. I don't need the heartbreak and stress of that. What if the child ends being rather slow in academics? Possible grounds being axed because my wife and I want a child that can pull in a B average, at the very least.
So from not wanting to have a baby due to not wanting to experience child labor to having the time & resources to raise that child, or just not wanting a child because motherhood is not what they want, I think it's reasonable to not want the "goo" because, if the days of Gattaca ever come, the woman who wants a child made to her own liking she has the right to axe any "goo" that doesn't meer her standard. The child that is brought into the world is costumed and therefor more wanted. Seems fair enough. After all, it's a woman's body.
Now that would be true progress. The reason to practice "choice" just became more interesting and fascinating. If we are trying to perfect made made institituions, say the economy, then this would be one giant step for mankind to customize our progeny before they even take their first breath.
Yes, pro-choice, indeed.
No comments :
Post a Comment