On Abortion

There are generally considered to be six arguments for abortion, and six counterarguments.

First Argument
The first argument considers the law and anthropology. It can be shown that many societies routinely practice abortion and infanticide without parental guilt or destruction of the moral fiber of the society. Usually examples are drawn from marginal societies, living in a harsh environment, such as the African Pygmies or Bushmen of the Kalahari. Or from societies which place a great premium on sons and kill of excess female infants. But the same argument has used the example of Japan, now the six-largest nation in the world and one of the highly industrialized.
The reverse argument states that Western society has little in common with either Pygmies or the Japanese, and that what is right and acceptable for them is not necessarily so for us.

Legal arguments are related to this. It can be shown that modern abortion laws did not always exist; they evolved over many centuries, in response to a variety of factors. Proponents of abortion claim that modern law are arbitrary, foolish, and irrelevant. They argue for a legal system which accurately reflects the mores and the technology of the present , not of the past.
The reverse argument points out that old laws are not necessarily bad laws and that to change them thoughtlessly invites uncertainty and flux in an already uncertain world. A less sophisticated form of the argument opposes abortion simply because it is illegal. until recently, many otherwise thoughtful doctors felt comfortable taking this position. Now, however, abortion is being debated in many circles, and such a simplistic view is untenable.

Second Argument
The second argument concerns abortion as a form of birth control. Proponents regard abortion on demand as a highly effective form of birth control and point to its success in Japan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. Proponents see no essential difference between preventing a conception and halting a process which has not yet resulted in a fully viable infant. (These same people see no difference between the rhythm method and the pill, since the intention of both practices is identical.) In essence, the argument claims that "it's the thought that counts."
Those who disagree draw a line between prevention and correction. They believe that once conception has occurred, the fetus has rights and can not be killed. This view point is held by many who favor conventional birth-control measures, and for these people, the problem of what to do if birth control fails - as it does in a certain percentage of cases - is troublesome.

Third Argument
The third argument considers social and psychiatric factors. It has variants.
The first states that the physical and mental health of the mother always takes precedence over that of the unborn child. the mother, and her already existing family, may suffer emotionally and financially by the birth of another infant, and therefore, in such cases the birth should be prevented.
The second states that it is immoral and criminal to bring into the world an unwanted child. It states that, in our increasingly complex society, the proper rearing of a child is a time-consuming and expensive process demanding maternal attention and paternal financial support for education. If a family can not provide this, they do a grave disservice to the child. The obvious extreme case is that of the unwed mother, who is frequently unprepared to rear an infant, either emotionally or financially.
The counter argument is vague here. There is talk of mothers who unconsciously wish to conceive; talk of the maternal urge to procreate; flat statements that "there never was a child born who wasn't wanted." Or an ex-post-fact-o approach: once the child is born, the family will adjust and love him.

Fourth Argument
The fourth argument states that a woman should never, under any circumstances, be required to bear a child if she does not wish to do so. Abortion on demand should be a right of every woman, like the right to vote. this is an interesting argument, but its usefulness has been diluted by many of its proponents, who often express a rather paranoid feelings that the world is dominated by men who can not be expected to show any sympathy for the opposite sex. Those who disagree with this argument usually point out that a modern, emancipated woman need not become pregnant if she does not wishe it. A wide variety of birth-control methods and devices is available to her, and they believe that abortion is not a substitute for birth-control failure and inadvertent pregnancy - such as rape - are difficult to handle within this framework, however.

Fifth Argument
The fifth argument states that abortion is safe, easy, simple, and cheap; thus there can be no practical objection to legalizing termination of pregnancy.
The counterargument states that abortion carries a finite risk of mortality, which, though small, nonetheless exists. Unfortunately for this viewpoint, it is now perfectly clear that a hospital abortion is one-sixth to one-tenth as dangerous as a hospital delivery. This means it is safer to abort a child than to carry it to term.

Sixth Argument
The sixth argument is the newest and the most ingenious. It was first proposed by Garrett Hardin, and it attacks the problem at a crucial question. Is abortion murder? Hardin says no. He argues that the embryo does not become human until after birth and a long period of training. He states that the embryos are nothing but a template, ultimately derived from DNA, the information carrying genetic substance. Information in itself, he says, is of no value. It is like a blueprint. the blueprint of a building, he says, is worthless; only the building has value and significance. The blueprint may be destroyed with impunity, for another can easily be made, but a building cannot be destroyed without a careful deliberation.
This is a swift and oversimplified summary of his argument. Hardin was trained both as an anthropologist and as a biologist, and his view point is unique. it is interesting because it considers the question of when is a person human in terms of what is a human being? Returning to the analogy of bluprint specifies size, shape and general structure, but it does not state whether the building will be erected in New York or Tokyo, whether in a slum or an affluent area, whether it will be used effectively or fall in to disrepair. By implication, Hardin is defining a human being not only as an animal that walks on its hind legs, has a large brain, and an operational thumb; he includes in the definition enough maternal care and education to make a person a well adjusted and functioning unit of a social grouping. (Probably this will be my next post) The counter argument says the Hardin assumes DNA is a "non-unique"copy of information, when in fact it is quiet unique. All children of a given mother and father are not identical; therefore the DNA cannot be "non-unique". To this Hardin replies that we already, quite by chance, select only some of the potential DNA combinations of sperm and egg and allow these to reach maturation. He notes that an average woman has 30,000 eggs in her ovaries, yet will bring only a few to term. The others are destroyed just as surely as if they had been aborted. And, as he says, one of them might have been "a super Beethoven". Hardin's argument is still new and strikes many as abstruse. But undoubtedly his is just the first of many new arguments, for and against abortion, which will be proposed on an increasingly subtle scientific basis. It is a commentary on modern man that he must justify this morality on the basis of the molecular mechanisms at work within a single cell of his body.

What I have tried here is to provide arguments on both sides to make up your mind.... My views: Coming from the crowded country like India - I know the cons of having over population in any country. We need to control the population of any county and to think globally - the planet - if we fill up the planet - we have yet to find place where life can survive. Best way to control the population is to use contraception. In case of birth-control failure and inadvertent pregnancy - such as rape, or if mothers life is in danger - it is OK to go for abortion, but exceptions doesn't make the rule. My views has nothing to do with morality or religious belief but sense of being practical here. I respect the moral arguments and religious beliefs of others, abort or not should be personal decision and not forced decision either way...