Abortion: The Purge

There is a saying that two wrongs don't make a right. But the philosophy of abortion rights seems to suggest that very thing, or at least that it is the lesser of two evils, so that by permitting abortion, lives are saved from botched illegal abortions. There may be some warrant here statistically, but we are sending mixed or incongruent messages. The system of abortion contradicts itself through adjacent philosophies and lacks philosophical integrity, even where it makes some apparent pragmatic sense.

Some of the philosophical issues I have include the above mentioned "two wrongs don't make a right" logical fallacy and more. Wrong is simply wrong. Unless abortion is elevated as normative and essential (as some do), it's contradictory for people to look at it as a balance with just a little more right.

Another issue is it is often lauded as an equal right for women. If it is equality, then a father ought to have a say over his chromosomal legacy too. The counter is obviously a defense of a women's body, which the zygote inhabits and draws from, but is distinct from. Then the issue of viability comes up that suggests that until a fetus is survivable outside the womb, then it is within the time frame of abortion rights. My problem here is that even a born baby is dependent once born. Self-sufficiency is a distraction.

Additionally, two legal factors counter the women's rights claims. If the woman can abort a child without consent of the father and has autonomy over her reproduction to preserve her lifestyle, readiness, and income from the taxing nature of parenthood, how come a father must pay child support once a baby is born, if that baby's existence taxes his livelihood and readiness? Seems hypocritical. Then, if the fetus is, as many suggest, not a viable human being pre-birth, why are double homicide statutes upheld if a mother and fetus are killed during the commission of a crime? 

Next, in a world of gender and sexual fluidity, defending a women's rights to her body seems to appeal to the binary and is out of step with emerging conceptions. In fact, it actually moves toward unitary system that places femaleness above maleness with respect to reproduction, which objectifies men as mere instruments and not voiced persons in the realm of human development and reproduction.

At the end of the day, abortion rights is frankly, all over the map. There are good and bad arguments between the poles. But, it all reminds me of the movie The Purge, where all the pent-up human angst is allowed to run rampant one night a year called "the Purge." This wrong of murder and criminality once a year somehow preserves the well-being of society the remainder of the year as a control on violence. This matches the arguments that by allowing abortions, less abortions, less deaths of mothers by botched abortions, less developmentally ill, less poverty, and less you name it will justify the institution.  

If supporting abortion has is a net positive for society, then why stop there? I have also heard of the broken foster and adoption systems as rationalizations for keeping abortion, because systemic failures with kids affect society. So, why not the death penalty for all felons then? They affect society. What is the moral distinction if both institutions can be elevated as public goods? 

Both sides engage in the slippery slope fallacy and argue over one another. None seek a balance or compromise, and dialogue is dead. Are there things that can be done that both sides can agree with without having The Purge? I may not have all the answers, but I feel that yielding to abortion's perceived advantage is an easy out amidst a difficult topic. I fear for our future.