Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Killing the infant won't lessen the pain of what happened to you. It'll just kill a developing human that's done nothing wrong. Meanwhile the sick monster who DOES deserve to die gets to sit around in prison watching TV, playing sports, and getting better medical care then the average poor person.

 

Seems kinda backwards to me.

And does the violated woman or girl enter into the equation at all as an innocent human? I would hope that fact would warrant maybe a bit of attention beyond the dismissal of "Oh, no, it won't help you". That's demonstrably not true for a vast majority of victims. Removing that reminder can be and is healing for many of them.

 

Fetus/embryo/zygote=/=infant. Forcing a woman or girl (or in some cases, man or boy, since not everyone with a female body is a woman) to carry a fetus she does not want to term is horrific. It's doubly so if the entire purpose is to use the resulting child as "evidence". Human beings are not incubators to be used for evidence preservation.

 

I'm a little sick of "what about the baby!?" What about the mother, who has been violated and probably doesn't want a walking reminder. Sure, there are women and girls who will, for reasons entirely personal to themselves, choose to carry to term and either raise or give up for adoption the resulting child. There are, however, a lot more who would prefer not to bear their rapist's child. Young girls being raped and conceiving as a result is not all that unusual. In what possible way is forcing a child to carry a rape pregnancy to term better for her than aborting, especially if that added trauma is for the sake of "providing evidence" of her rape?

 

 

 

ETA: note regarding the bill: The language has now been edited to specify that the mother of the fetus shall not be prosecuted. Not that that really makes it better. It's pretty much just an "oh crap, gotta cover my ass" reaction.

Edited by LascielsShadow

Share this post


Link to post

And does the violated woman or girl enter into the equation at all for you as an innocent human? I would hope that fact would warrant maybe a bit of attention beyond the dismissal of "Oh, no, it won't help you". That's demonstrably not true for a vast majority of victims. Removing that reminder can be and is healing for many of them.

 

Fetus/embryo/zygote=/=infant. Forcing a woman or girl (or in some cases, man or boy, since not everyone with a female body is a woman) to carry a fetus she does not want to term is horrific. It's doubly so if the entire purpose is to use the resulting child as "evidence". Human beings are not incubators to be used for evidence preservation.

 

I'm a little sick of "what about the baby!?" What about the mother, who has been violated and probably doesn't want a walking reminder. Sure, there are women and girls who will, for reasons entirely personal to themselves, choose to carry to term and either raise or give up for adoption the resulting child. There are, however, a lot more who would prefer not to bear their rapist's child. Young girls being raped and conceiving as a result is not all that unusual. In what possible way is forcing a child to carry a rape pregnancy to term better for her than aborting, especially if that added trauma is for the sake of "providing evidence" of her rape?

This this this this this.

 

Pregnancy and childbirth can be a wonderful, beautiful thing if someone wants it. However, it can also be horrifically traumatizing to the woman's body.

 

The permanent effects of pregnancy are not just birth. There are tons of long-lasting physical and psychological effects. Should a woman have to live for the rest of her life with incontinence, pelvic floor disorder or prolapsed uterus (for example) because she was sexually assaulted? That seems rather unfair.

 

Or what about me? If I got pregnant it'd be disastrous, because I have clinical depression; not only would I probably have to stop my meds, but I'd probably enjoy some extra hormonal weirdness that would make my depression even worse. And if I'd gotten that way due to rape (which, considering I'm with a woman, would be about the only way that'd happen) I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be in the best mental state either. Does my mental health count less than a bundle of cells lurking in my uterus? How very interesting!

 

I don't know if this has come up earlier in the thread but here's a very interesting article of a woman who was formerly a pro-life activist and how she became pro-choice, and I think it's worth a read regardless of where you fall on the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so pro choice it hurts....

 

don't really wanna argue right now :T

Edited by MaggieXawesomeness

Share this post


Link to post

Or what about me?  If I got pregnant it'd be disastrous, because I have clinical depression; not only would I probably have to stop my meds, but I'd probably enjoy some extra hormonal weirdness that would make my depression even worse.  And if I'd gotten that way due to rape (which, considering I'm with a woman, would be about the only way that'd happen) I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be in the best mental state either.  Does my mental health count less than a bundle of cells lurking in my uterus?  How very interesting!

I'm the same way. I'm still playing the 'find-the-right-med' game, so I'm unstable enough without having to worry about how I'm going to survive childbirth and pregnancy when I can barely function as it is. It really wouldn't matter if abortion was legal or not; one way or another, that fetus would wind up dead.

 

I had a pregnancy scare a month ago. I'm on the pill but my clockwork-like period never came, and I was pretty freaked out that I was pregnant. Pregnancy tests came up negative and I finally got my period the next time I was scheduled for a period. But I was comforted knowing how easy it is for me to get an abortion. Because if I couldn't get abortion, it would be 'bye-bye' to the both of us. The thing I was scared about the most is the judgement I would receive from me and my husband's religious families. They wouldn't be able to handle me telling them I'm an atheist, I doubt they'd be able to handle me telling them I killed their potential grandchild.

 

Sometimes I wonder if maybe I'd be okay with having a kid, but I had this dream the other night. My period stopped and no matter what test I was given they all said I wasn't pregnant. It wasn't until I was 6 months along and had an obvious pregnancy belly that my pregnancy was confirmed, but by then it was too late to legally have an abortion. I was absolutely crushed and was just wandering around in my dream trying to find ways to die while people taunted me for having an unplanned pregnancy. So I guess my dream showed me that I obviously would not be okay with getting pregnant laugh.gif .

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.newsytype.com/12834-catholic-church-stole-babies/

 

Over the past five decades, as many as 300,000 newborn Spanish babies were stolen from their parents and sold to families that General Francisco Franco and the Catholic Church considered to be more devout. The original parents were told that their child had died, according to a recent BBC 2 TV documentary entitled “Spain’s Stolen Babies.”

 

mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

The UK did that with older children, right up to the 70s. Shipped them to Australia and Canada from children's homes and told many that their parents were dead when that was not the case. There was an excellent movie made about it - Oranges and Sunshine.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_children - it was a shocking thing.

Share this post


Link to post

there is no reason to ever murder a baby if i were to take a chainsaw or a gun or a knife or acid or w/e and hurt a kid thats already outside the whomb id go to jail so why is it ok for them to tear children apart, burn them with acid, suffocate them, suck their brains out etc. it isnt thats right case closed there is no circumstance where this is ok especially when so many couples who cant have children would gladly take a baby that someone wasnt ready, was too damn lazy or irresponsible to care for. case closed game over.

Edited by linda3.0

Share this post


Link to post
there is no reason to ever murder a baby if i were to take a chainsaw or a gun or a knife or acid or w/e and hurt a kid thats already outside the whomb id go to jail so why is it ok for them to tear children apart, burn them with acid, suffocate them, suck their brains out etc. it isnt thats right case closed there is no circumstance where this is ok especially when so many couples who cant have children would gladly take a baby that someone wasnt ready, was too damn lazy or irresponsible to care for. case closed game over.

Because it isn't a child to some people.

Share this post


Link to post
there is no reason to ever murder a baby if i were to take a chainsaw or a gun or a knife or acid or w/e and hurt a kid thats already outside the whomb id go to jail so why is it ok for them to tear children apart, burn them with acid, suffocate them, suck their brains out etc. it isnt thats right case closed there is no circumstance where this is ok especially when so many couples who cant have children would gladly take a baby that someone wasnt ready, was too damn lazy or irresponsible to care for. case closed game over.

A child is a sentient being capable of feeling pain. A clump of cells is not. It may respond to stimuli like a plant, but it can't really feel pain. Even when the concept of pain arises, it's after the point most abortions are performed and even then there's an argument that you can't really experience pain without consciousness, as it's a physiological thing.

 

A child is a sentient, independent being with personhood. A pregnant woman is a sentient, independent being with personhood. A clump of cells is not.

 

If there are so many couples willing to take a child why are there so many children left in and forgotten in the foster care system? Why do we try to prevent gay couples from adopting? Why do so many children in foster care wish they'd never been born? What about the extreme rate of attempted suicide by young kids in the foster care system?

 

http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showt...dpost&p=6504218

 

Only 2-3% of kids placed in the system are adopted. The rest stay in the system until they die or age out, statistically going through at least one abusive foster home.

 

Further, adoption is prohibitively expensive:

 

Average cost for pre-natal doctor's visits: 1,862-3,543

Ultrasound: $100-400 for the cheap ones. From $500 up if complications are involved.

Pre-natal tests: $1,100-$2,000 assuming standard tests only and no reason for more expensive ones.

Vaginal delivery without complication: $6,200 -$7,500

Vaginal delivery with complication: $8,200 - $10,500

C-section without complication: $11,500 - $13,000

C-section with complication = $15,500 - $ 18,200

Hospital stay: $4,000 - $6,000

Neonatal and pediatric care: $900 - $2,000 (no complications)

Neonatal and pediatric care: 1,500 -4,000 (with complications)

 

Average cost to give a child up for adoption, with fees included, at birth, not including all the above $7,000-10,000

 

1 in 3 will tell a social worker that they wish they had been aborted. 16% of those under 12 will attempt to commit suicide and fail. another 9% will succeed. Of those that fail, 86% will attempt again, even if removed from the foster family they were with at the time. In foster kids 12-18, 82% will attempt suicide before aging out, of those who do not die prior to reaching 18. in 94% of these cases, they will state that they wish they had never been born, or wish they had been aborted.

 

(United States Child Protective Services Inter-State Study of Child Welfare in Foster Care, 2010)

 

The insults against women who don't want to be or aren't ready to be parents are unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you Socky. wub.gif I was trying to find a way to say this myself. (And for the record, my 12 week abortion was by medication. No acid, cutting, tearing apart.)

Share this post


Link to post
there is no reason to ever murder a baby if i were to take a chainsaw or a gun or a knife or acid or w/e and hurt a kid thats already outside the whomb id go to jail so why is it ok for them to tear children apart, burn them with acid, suffocate them, suck their brains out etc. it isnt thats right case closed there is no circumstance where this is ok especially when so many couples who cant have children would gladly take a baby that someone wasnt ready, was too damn lazy or irresponsible to care for. case closed game over.

A) It's not a child. It's a collection of cells that cannot survive on its own. You know what used to be super common--and, in fact, still is in many places where abortion is illegal? Infanticide. I'd rather have a fetus, unable to feel pain, be removed than know that there's a baby somewhere with a full nervous system being left out in the cold to die, wouldn't you?

 

cool.gif Why is this collection of cells more important than a living, breathing, independent woman? Because she was the one wicked enough to have sex? Because controlling women is awesome? Do tell.

 

C) Wow, are you really insulting women too "lazy" to raise children? Did you read any of the other posts? Like how for a lot of women, raising children--or even birthing one--would be incredibly detrimental to physical or mental health? And wouldn't you rather have people who are too lazy to raise children, you know, NOT try it?

 

D) While we're at it, you're insulting everyone in this thread who doesn't agree with you. That's an excellent debate method right there.

 

E) Do you have any idea how many children are available for adoption? How many kids have you adopted? How many kids are you planning to adopt?

 

F) It's cool if you're anti-choice, seriously, respect and all that. But read on it. Not just the "pro-life" pamphlets. The methods of abortion you list are either inaccurate, out of date, or grossly simplified.

 

On a related note, I think I just developed a crush on SockPuppet Strangler for saying all my above points more coherently.

Share this post


Link to post

there is no reason to ever murder a baby

First: baby does not equal fetus. Second: did you read the last couple pages? People have said that they would seriously consider killing themselves if forced to carry a child to term. How about that innocent life?

 

if i were to take a chainsaw or a gun or a knife or acid or w/e and hurt a kid thats already outside the whomb id go to jail so why is it ok for them to tear children apart, burn them with acid, suffocate them, suck their brains out etc.

 

A clump of cells can not feel pain and has no awareness of its existence.

 

it isnt thats right case closed

To you it may not be, but I'd rather my reproductive choices not be dictated by others.

 

there is no circumstance where this is ok

Mother having a medical issue where she cannot physically bear a child

Mother having an emotional condition that would result in suicide

The mother being a minor

Or really any circumstance where one does not feel that they can raise a child properly

 

especially when so many couples who cant have children would gladly take a baby

If there are so many people willing to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes? Socky has some very good info on that in her post smile.gif

 

that someone wasnt ready, was too damn lazy or irresponsible to care for.

That paints a very negative view of the people who abort their children. If you were raped and didn't want to carry a child because of the traumatic reminder I don't think that you're 'unready' 'lazy' or 'irresponsible'. In fact I believe that realizing that you are not prepared to take care of a child is actually very responsible.

 

case closed game over.

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
On that note, if there is anyone else around here from NM, please email those involved to say no to this!

 

Email: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/committeedispla...itteeCode=HCPAC (where the bill will be at) and cath@cathrynnbrown.com (who suggested the addition of abortion to the bill)

 

~

 

Several of my friends and I have already contacted our reps to express our displeasure. I really hope this doesn't gain any ground. D|

On House Bill 206 that would make procuring an abortion in the case of rape illegal. I received a reply from Rep. Chasey:

 

This bill isn't going anywhere.

Thanks for writing.

 

I feel a little better.

 

I accept all crushes on me. <3

Share this post


Link to post

It really isn't lazy to not want a child.

 

I know I personally would be a terrible parent. I'd probably end up with whatever spawn I birthed getting taken from me and being jailed for neglect or something.

 

I just do not possess the capacity to be a parent to a child. I don't like kids, I don't do well with those who constantly need my attention like a baby would. I can handle them in small doses, but it would drive me to insanity to deal with 24/7. Hell I couldn't even babysit younger kids because of it. And by the time they're old enough for me to tolerate, they're old enough to handle themselves.

 

I don't think I could emotionally bond with a child, either, in the way that a parent needs to.

 

On top of that, I don't handle stress well. I've been in therapy most of my life due to depression that's triggered and enhanced because of stress. If something much less demanding than caring for an infant could drive me to attempting suicide, I quite possibly could end up either killing myself and/or the baby as a result of being emotionally unstable enough to take care of myself, much less a kid.

 

I'd personally think I'd be responsible.

 

Not to mention there's no way I could handle being pregnant. I mean, I'm on medication. I might need to go off my medication to support a child inside me. And, considering the fact that I'm on the medication because I was pretty much having mental breakdowns... Well, somehow I doubt that becoming passively suicidal is healthy for the unborn blob of cells.

 

Not to mention that, honestly, my eating habit wouldn't allow for me or the child to have enough nutrition to be healthy--and, quite frankly, I don't know if I could change that for a brat I don't want that's just leeching off my body.

 

Especially seeing as I'm asexual, and not really seeking any kind of relationship right now, so the only way I'd end up with a kid is through rape.

 

Hell the rape alone could very well be enough to destabilize me to the point I COULDN'T be off meds and function well enough to survive.

 

In which case, the abortion would be because I would need to look after my own mental health first.

 

I mean, if I abort, I can always have another kid later (or adopt!). If I kill myself, then not only does the unborn fetus die anyway, but so do I, and then I can't have a kid later or adopt a kid later.

 

So, for some of us, it would be the choice of "kill the fetus" or "let the mother die and take the fetus with her".

 

So, it's one life or two--but either way that fetus isn't surviving.

 

In that case, is it not better to abort and save at least one life?

Share this post


Link to post
It really isn't lazy to not want a child.

 

I know I personally would be a terrible parent. I'd probably end up with whatever spawn I birthed getting taken from me and being jailed for neglect or something.

 

I just do not possess the capacity to be a parent to a child. I don't like kids, I don't do well with those who constantly need my attention like a baby would. I can handle them in small doses, but it would drive me to insanity to deal with 24/7. Hell I couldn't even babysit younger kids because of it. And by the time they're old enough for me to tolerate, they're old enough to handle themselves.

 

I don't think I could emotionally bond with a child, either, in the way that a parent needs to.

 

On top of that, I don't handle stress well. I've been in therapy most of my life due to depression that's triggered and enhanced because of stress. If something much less demanding than caring for an infant could drive me to attempting suicide, I quite possibly could end up either killing myself and/or the baby as a result of being emotionally unstable enough to take care of myself, much less a kid.

 

I'd personally think I'd be responsible.

 

Not to mention there's no way I could handle being pregnant. I mean, I'm on medication. I might need to go off my medication to support a child inside me. And, considering the fact that I'm on the medication because I was pretty much having mental breakdowns... Well, somehow I doubt that becoming passively suicidal is healthy for the unborn blob of cells.

 

Not to mention that, honestly, my eating habit wouldn't allow for me or the child to have enough nutrition to be healthy--and, quite frankly, I don't know if I could change that for a brat I don't want that's just leeching off my body.

 

Especially seeing as I'm asexual, and not really seeking any kind of relationship right now, so the only way I'd end up with a kid is through rape.

 

Hell the rape alone could very well be enough to destabilize me to the point I COULDN'T be off meds and function well enough to survive.

 

In which case, the abortion would be because I would need to look after my own mental health first.

 

I mean, if I abort, I can always have another kid later (or adopt!). If I kill myself, then not only does the unborn fetus die anyway, but so do I, and then I can't have a kid later or adopt a kid later.

 

So, for some of us, it would be the choice of "kill the fetus" or "let the mother die and take the fetus with her".

 

So, it's one life or two--but either way that fetus isn't surviving.

 

In that case, is it not better to abort and save at least one life?

Kage your point is something that I think the prolife side just doesn't seem to understand. They don't 'see' how a pregnancy can kill. I ran across a story on a pro-choice story site about a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy and was told by her doctor she had to have an abortion. Concerned that it was against her religion she went and talked to people in her church and her preacher. they told her most of those pregnancies miscarry anyway and she should wait for nature to take its course. She ended up having emergency surgery and an abortion when the tube ruptured. After she passed the news on to her congregation they told her not to come back because she had an abortion. blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I'm completely prochoice. If you find yourself pregnant and you aren't ready for the responsibility of a child, then there's the option of adoption or abortion - either are completely fine and the decision is completely up to the mother. In the case of rape or the mother's life being at risk, both are completely viable reasons to get an abortion.

 

Using abortion as birth-control isn't wise though - contraceptives are amazing, though there is always a chance they will fail.

 

What I don't like when it comes to the topic of abortion are all of the MALES that seem to know what's best for a women to do with her body.

 

Although it's a far off, laugh-worthy idea, I really wish men could get pregnant - then things wouldn't be so complicated when it comes to contraceptives.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that if men were the ones who bore children, there wouldn't be all these restrictions and attempts to complicate matters.

 

I mean, I don't like it when a woman tries to tell another woman what to do with her body, but man, when a MALE tries to?

 

If you don't have the equipment, you don't get to dictate how those who do use it.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that if men were the ones who bore children, there wouldn't be all these restrictions and attempts to complicate matters.

 

I mean, I don't like it when a woman tries to tell another woman what to do with her body, but man, when a MALE tries to?

 

If you don't have the equipment, you don't get to dictate how those who do use it.

But that only applies if abortion really ISN'T a moral issue. And that's where the argument is. If abortion really is a moral wrong, I have just as much of a right to take a stand against it as I do to stand against rape, or murder. If it's not, then you'd be right, I wouldn't have much of a say about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if you consider it a moral question you have to ask yourself - do the rights of the fetus/embryo trump the woman or do the rights of the woman trump the fetus/embryo? If it's the second, then you still wouldn't have a right to dictate what I do with my body, even if it morally bothered you. ;3

Share this post


Link to post
Even if you consider it a moral question you have to ask yourself - do the rights of the fetus/embryo trump the woman or do the rights of the woman trump the fetus/embryo? If it's the second, then you still wouldn't have a right to dictate what I do with my body, even if it morally bothered you. ;3

Hrmmmm. While I actually do agree with you on that one, Sock, I can somewhat see that point. If one honestly, truly, believed that early-term abortion was murder then yes - the rights of the embryo *would* trump the rights of the woman, because murder simply isn't morally acceptable under any circumstances.

 

Although, again, if that was the case then such people really should be supporting decent sex education and contraceptive use. Because if the sole aim is to reduce the number of 'murders' then preventing people getting into the condition that led them to that act would seem sensible.

 

I am sure that there *are* people in the 'pro-life' movement who honestly *do* believe that any abortion is murder. I can't say I agree with them, but I have far more respect for people that hold that opinion & that agree that reducing the pregnancy rate is one of the better ways to go about reducing the abortion rate than I do for those people that use 'abortion is murder' as an excuse for controling people's behaviour.

 

Incidently I will also note that there are incidences where morally wrong (in one person's opinion) should not make something illegal. To my mind adultery (and most divorces) are morally wrong. That doesn't mean they should be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Hrmmmm. While I actually do agree with you on that one, Sock, I can somewhat see that point. If one honestly, truly, believed that early-term abortion was murder then yes - the rights of the embryo *would* trump the rights of the woman, because murder simply isn't morally acceptable under any circumstances.

 

Killing people in self defense is legal in most parts of the world and if a woman would die from bearing a child, I'd assume it could fall under that category.

Share this post


Link to post
But that only applies if abortion really ISN'T a moral issue. And that's where the argument is. If abortion really is a moral wrong, I have just as much of a right to take a stand against it as I do to stand against rape, or murder. If it's not, then you'd be right, I wouldn't have much of a say about it.

But, the question is... If MEN were the ones to give birth, would it still be a moral issue? Or would there not be an issue?

 

Of course, that depends on your views of the world. If you believe religion came from mankind, rather than from some sort of divine entity, then that could seriously alter the way things worked--and morals would be different if things were different with people.

 

So, supposing that religion is of man's creation not inspired by the divine, if we still had a male-dominated society it's quite possible that if men were the childbearers, then things could be incredibly different than they are in our reality.

 

Of course, there's also the sad fact that a lot of people hide behind the "moral" claim, but they're really doing it because they want to control women and are perfectly fine with other things that they should consider just as immoral. Of course, not all pro-life people are like that. But there's a sad number of them who are.

 

But, that aside... How is it morally acceptable to allow two deaths instead of one? Or to force a hellish life on a person who never asked for it by refusing to allow the mother to abort it? How is it morally acceptable to allow a child to be chucked into an uncaring system or to be brought up by a mother who hates them and wishes they could have aborted them? Is it morally right to force a child into the world, only for them to end their lives in despair when they're unwanted and unloved?

 

Yes, I'm aware that not all cases end up like that--I'm a success story of adoption myself. But a depressing number of times, kids DO grow up unloved and unwanted. They're abused and neglected in their homes, or they're tossed into a system and simply bounced around until they simply age out of it.

 

I don't think it's morally right to force that kind of life on another person, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
But, the question is... If MEN were the ones to give birth, would it still be a moral issue? Or would there not be an issue?

 

Of course, that depends on your views of the world. If you believe religion came from mankind, rather than from some sort of divine entity, then that could seriously alter the way things worked--and morals would be different if things were different with people.

 

So, supposing that religion is of man's creation not inspired by the divine, if we still had a male-dominated society it's quite possible that if men were the childbearers, then things could be incredibly different than they are in our reality.

 

Of course, there's also the sad fact that a lot of people hide behind the "moral" claim, but they're really doing it because they want to control women and are perfectly fine with other things that they should consider just as immoral. Of course, not all pro-life people are like that. But there's a sad number of them who are.

 

But, that aside... How is it morally acceptable to allow two deaths instead of one? Or to force a hellish life on a person who never asked for it by refusing to allow the mother to abort it? How is it morally acceptable to allow a child to be chucked into an uncaring system or to be brought up by a mother who hates them and wishes they could have aborted them? Is it morally right to force a child into the world, only for them to end their lives in despair when they're unwanted and unloved?

 

Yes, I'm aware that not all cases end up like that--I'm a success story of adoption myself. But a depressing number of times, kids DO grow up unloved and unwanted. They're abused and neglected in their homes, or they're tossed into a system and simply bounced around until they simply age out of it.

 

I don't think it's morally right to force that kind of life on another person, personally.

Amen to this whole post.

Share this post


Link to post
Hrmmmm. While I actually do agree with you on that one, Sock, I can somewhat see that point. If one honestly, truly, believed that early-term abortion was murder then yes - the rights of the embryo *would* trump the rights of the woman, because murder simply isn't morally acceptable under any circumstances.

 

Although, again, if that was the case then such people really should be supporting decent sex education and contraceptive use. Because if the sole aim is to reduce the number of 'murders' then preventing people getting into the condition that led them to that act would seem sensible.

 

I am sure that there *are* people in the 'pro-life' movement who honestly *do* believe that any abortion is murder. I can't say I agree with them, but I have far more respect for people that hold that opinion & that agree that reducing the pregnancy rate is one of the better ways to go about reducing the abortion rate than I do for those people that use 'abortion is murder' as an excuse for controling people's behaviour.

 

Incidently I will also note that there are incidences where morally wrong (in one person's opinion) should not make something illegal. To my mind adultery (and most divorces) are morally wrong. That doesn't mean they should be illegal.

Ah, that's what I wanted to address. I knew there'd be an argument against it. =p

 

My reply to this would really be path of less evil.

 

As is pointed out even in the gun argument - banning something isn't going to stop everyone from procuring it (an abortion/a gun). Knowing this and knowing that more women (along with the fetus/embryo inside them) die when abortion is illegal, knowing that banning abortion doesn't really lower the number of people who seek one, and knowing that proper sex education and access to contraception actually lower abortion rates, which path would you take to save the lives you could? Would you promote things known to lower abortion rates in order to lower abortion rates or would you continue to deny women abortion best you could?

 

Which is what you just said, so I'm not really sure why I typed it up again. x3

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.