One less thing to fight about

By Jacob | Related entries in News

With doctors being murdered and abortion used as a tool to corrupt the national health care discussion:

“This issue is not about party politics. It’s not about obstructionism. It is about saving lives and protecting pro-life Americans across the country,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, said.

I wish there was a way to end this debate for good and keep abortion out of politics.

The fact is, “pro-life” Americans do not need protection from abortion. They are not in any danger.

The next fact is, American society requires access to safe abortions. Women will have abortions either way. The only question is whether or not they will live through it.

In the face of such evidence, it’s disingenuous for opponents of legal abortion to claim a moral high ground campaigning for policy that will not reduce abortions and will severely increase the risk to women’s health. A sincere proponent of life would do better to focus their energy in more productive arenas.

The late Harry Browne sums it up well:

Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion – such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws [and] encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion …

It’s hard to argue against the logic of this point.

But how to move this issue out of government and into the third sector where it clearly belongs?

I’d like to see an amendment that says something like this:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to safe abortion shall not be denied by the United States or by any State.

2. The Congress shall have power to appropriate funds to promote the progress of Abortion Prevention.

It’s win win. Legal abortion would no longer be an issue and the government can throw a ton of money at the people and organizations that have a chance of decreasing it. Everybody would be happy and there will be one less wedge issue to distract from judicial nominations, elections, the health care debate, etc.


This entry was posted on Saturday, August 1st, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

37 Responses to “One less thing to fight about”

  1. Texasbacksass Says:

    No wonder I a very politically independent human being don’t fit into politics anymore…the animals have taken over at least metaphorically if not in fact.

  2. Hanlon Says:

    Well the funny thing is that abortions go down whenever proper sex education and the like is implemented, and it goes up in areas where abstinence-only is the norm.

    When “sex” is such a forbidden fruit, young brainwashed pregnant girls will go to any lengths to prevent anyone from knowing what they’ve done.

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    Good luck “solving” this issue, Jacob. Let me know what you think after you’ve acquired another decade or two of scars. In the meantime, keep in mind that opinions not founded on reason are not susceptible to reason. Faith-based opinions (and there are zillions of them , both conservative and liberal) are usually surrounded by chains of reason, but the copre faith is still not directly accessible by reason.

    That abortion is murder is an article of faith. For the folks who share this faith, legal abortion will not be accepted simply because any abortion supporter declares that it is a “fact” that American society requires access to safe abortion.

    Their answer will be either that it does not in fact require such access, or that morally, it should not require such access. So again, good luck.

    Another thing worth contemplating is the extent to which your own beliefs regarding abortion are founded on some sort of faith.

    I often find myself wondering what will happen to this debate when and if advancing medical technolgy makes it possible to reliably keep alive and nurture a fetus that is 5 months old, 4 months old, 3 months old, etc.

  4. mw Says:

    This debate cannot be resolved on a rational basis if both sides cling to fundamentally irrational and arbitrary dates on which to bequeath the status and rights of a human being. Moment of conception is a irrational article of faith. Moment of birth is a irrational article of faith. Clearly, with current technology, third term babies are aborted now at a stage where they could be viable outside the womb. That said, it does not seem workable to have a sliding scale based on best technology as science moves us inexorably to the day that a fetus can be conceived in a test tube and brought to term outside the womb (as pointed out by Kranky) .

    So pick your arbitrary date and stick with it. Myself, I am a confirmed pro-choice advocate. I believe the mother should have unfettered choice to abort a fetus up to the 83rd trimester. I mean, its not like teenagers are functional human beings anyway. They would behave better if they knew their mother could still abort them until the age of 20.

  5. Solomon Kleinsmith Says:

    kk said it well above when he stated that this issue comes down to murder for some people, and no effort could possibly dissuade them or settle the issue. You’re also making a faulty assumption that an amendment like that would have any chance what so ever of passing, much less actually solve the problem. Neither is the case. You’d never get the supermajority of state legislatures to support something like that, and even pushing for an amendment to say we can spend money on programs to reduce abortions… well, we already do that. We could do more, but it would be much easier to put the energy necessary you might spend on the fools errand of pushing for a constitutional amendment towards a possible increase in funding for sex ed and other programs that have a positive effect on abortion levels.

    I actually am of the opinion that late term abortions are in fact murder. But until we have developed a way to measure that scientifically, namely that the fetus is conscious and experiencing the (as opposed to merely growing, with no consciousness… which I understand activates sometime around the end of the 2nd trimester), then you can’t really criminalize it.

  6. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    mw:

    So pick your arbitrary date and stick with it.

    I question your partriotsm. The constitution clearly defines a human being as “the entity that is viable outside the womb, albeit with medical assistance.” I know, I know its not literally there, you won’t find it written in the document, but picking an arbitrary date and “sticking with it,” is clearly illegal because six unelected, unaccountable black-robed sages told me so in 1973. We don’t get to choose to kill the foetus after that date – which you presume to be arbitrary – however, it is fare game on anything before.

  7. jacob.donklephant Says:

    For the folks who share this faith, legal abortion will not be accepted simply because any abortion supporter declares that it is a “fact” that American society requires access to safe abortion.

    The facts are clear:

    “The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy”

    Just because people of faith don’t want it to be true, doesn’t make it so. In reality, for ethical, moral and practical reasons, abortion needs to be legal in this country.

    You’re also making a faulty assumption that an amendment like that would have any chance what so ever of passing, much less actually solve the problem.

    I made no such assumption. I wrote ‘what I’d like to see is …” – not “what we should do is …”

    We could do more, but it would be much easier to put the energy necessary you might spend on the fools errand of pushing for a constitutional amendment towards a possible increase in funding for sex ed and other programs that have a positive effect on abortion levels.

    See, I think it would be more productive to put the energy we currently expend (have expended and will expend) bickering like idiots on every stage, toward a final solution that ends debate on this level. Then all that energy can be channeled into something that actually works.

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    Jacob-sorry but your elusive point seems to be escaping me still. Initially you use the word “require” which didn’t ring true to me or transmit much in the way of real meaning. Require in what sense, I wondered.

    Now you’ve moved on to the claim that abortion “needs” to be legal for practical, moral, and ethical reasons.

    You seem impressed with the point that, if abortion was illegal, some or even many americans would still get abortions. It is not at all clear to me what you think this indicates. Unless you are simply suggesting that since many folks would break a law against abortion, having such a law would be pointless. I hope that’s not your argument, because it’s a fairly weak one.

    In addition, I can’t help but notice that pro-lifers are certain that abortion needs be IL-legal for moral and ethical reasons. Now, it doesn’t personally trouble me much that abortion is legal. But I don’t think you’ve brought any real additional clarity to the issue.

    I do sincerely wish you luck, though.

    See, I think it would be more productive to put the energy we currently expend (have expended and will expend) bickering like idiots on every stage, toward a final solution that ends debate on this level. Then all that energy can be channeled into something that actually works.

    Who really disagrees with that? Everyone would love to end the debate, so long as they got the outcome they wanted. The problem is that not everyone wants the same outcome. It would be fantastic to be productive and put this debate in the past. The question is how to do that. I can’t count on all my fingers and toes the number of people who think this debate can be ended if only everyone else would just see things their way.

  9. jacob.donklephant Says:

    KK: I’m impressed with the FACT that an equal number of women will get abortions whether it’s legal or not. I’m even more impressed with the FACT that the number of women hurt or killed by coat hanger abortions goes through the roof when abortion is illegal.

    My argument is that 1 million babies (for example) are dying a year from abortions. When abortion becomes illegal 1 million babies and 300,000 women are going to die every year. And 300,000 more women are going to be seriously wounded.

    Common sense, ethics, morals, practicality – whatever – dictates that abortion should be legal because we’re reducing “x” amount of deaths.

    Nobody is seriously considering outlawing Penicillin because Christian Scientists thing it’s wrong. Why is abortion even on the table? It’s ridiculous.

    There is a right and wrong answer as far as government’s involvement in this. The right answer is to make it legal forever and be done with it. Then we can work in the civil sector to reduce the number of abortions – which is what people of faith say they really want anyway.

    The next blockquote you … um … blockquoted from my comment was a direct response to Solomon’s comment.

  10. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Interesting that Jacob believes they are babies but its OK to kill them. Its Ok to kill babies, even with tax payer funding, becasue they would be killed anyway illegally. Brilliant.

  11. jacob.donklephant Says:

    Jimmy, tax payer funding?

  12. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Perhaps I misread you about tax-payer funding. It would have been more egregious of me to accuse you of supporting legalizing the killing of babies – if that was not your position – but you don’t seem to be complaining about that.

    Honestly, this is the first time I have ever heard a pro-choice advocate concede the point that those are, in fact, human babies being killed.

  13. jacob.donklephant Says:

    I’m not complaining about that. Abortion is a horrific and unfortunate part of the human condition that is demonstrably unaffected by laws attempting to restrict it. Fetus or baby, it doesn’t matter what you or I (or anyone else) calls it, making abortion illegal WILL NOT save any babies and WILL kill more mothers.

    I would rather see everybody focusing their energy on something that might help reduce the number of abortions instead of fighting tooth and nail for “Principle” when their principles aren’t going to do anything except hurt more people.

    It’s illogical.

    (creepy catcha: “71 stab”)

  14. kranky kritter Says:

    When abortion becomes illegal 1 million babies and 300,000 women are going to die every year. And 300,000 more women are going to be seriously wounded.

    Please cite your source for this data. You seem to be suggesting that making abortion illegal would have no effect whatsoever on the abortion rate. I am not pro-life, so I don’t have a direct dog in this data hunt. But it seems sound to me to believe that somewhat fewer pregnant women will opt for abortion should it be made illegal, simply because availability will be somewhat more difficult. How many fewer is difficult to say, but you’d need very good and thorough data to prove to me that in fact making abortion illegal would have absolutely no effect on the abortion rate. I suspect that you are overstating your case, and oversimplifying the situation.

    I am happy to acknowledge that forcing folks underground to terminate unwanted pregnancies would be very unfortunate. But it does not seem reasonable to me to think that should abortion be made illegal, we would see the kind of mortality rate you suggest. To claim this as a FACT, you need to at least cite your data and explain you you arrived at your projection. For example, it would be silly to project from mortality rates in other countries unlike the US, or to project from mortality rates from the US from decades in the past.

    Instead, what we’d likely see would be more medical tourism. It’s extremely unlikely that abortion would be made illegal at a federal level. If RvW was overturned, abortion would remain legal in many states.

  15. Chris Says:

    There’s been a number of studies on abortion around the world, and while his numbers may be arbitrary, the facts are still shown in these studies. Countries with legal abortions have almost exactly the same amount of abortions and countries that have made abortions illegal.

  16. Chris Says:

    sorry I meant *as countries

  17. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I’m with Kranky on this. If your sole premise for supporting the decriminilization of killing babies is because the number of babies killed would not decline if it were made illegal, then show your data.

    When was the last time a country with an established tradition of legalized baby killing outlawed the practice later? I doubt if there ever has been one. It seems to always occur in the reverse direction.

    And the only reason I keep calling it baby killing is because that is what jacob refered to abortion above. I find this to be rather refreshing and honest.

  18. michael reynolds Says:

    We’re not going to outlaw abortion. Ain’t happening.

  19. jacob.donklephant Says:

    Gentlemen, kindly follow the links in my original post before suggesting I “prove it”.

    I cited this article titled “Abortion rates same whether legal or not”. It references a study done by:

    Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in the United States and colleagues from the World Health Organization. It was published in an edition of The Lancet medical journal devoted to maternal health.

    The numbers in my comment were arbitrary but

    You seem to be suggesting that making abortion illegal would have no effect whatsoever on the abortion rate.

    This is, in fact, true. Again, the only difference is the dramatically increased risk to womens health.

    You’re a piece of work Jimmy. I’ll call it whatever you want to call it, nothing changes the fact that people who are fighting to make abortion illegal are wasting everyone’s time and working against any effort to actually reduce abortion rates.

  20. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    We’re not going to outlaw abortion. Ain’t happening.

    Could we at least vote on it first?

  21. Chris Says:

    no, we can’t vote on it. thanks though. But I would like to vote on your right to access the internet.

  22. Redbus Says:

    Jacob -

    Your argument about overturning Roe v. Wade not decreasing the number of abortion victims is silly. Factcheck.org has criticized both Dem and GOP claims on this issue, so it seems pretty non-partisan. Google: abortion rates before 1973. Its’ pretty eye-opening stuff. Bottom line: It’s unlikely that more than 1,000 women ever died annually prior to Roe v. Wade. That’s not to say that 1,000 deaths don’t matter. They absolutely do, but how can this be balanced with the many millions of unborn that have been killed since then? Also, even today, are abortions totally “safe”? Women still die from the procedure today, even though the law has changed.

    As for the number of pre-born victims, it would certainly decline, simply because when something is illegal, society discourages the practice, so people look for alternatives. Adoptions would rise as abortions become rare.

    The best way to make abortions “rare” is to outlaw them, at least in most circumstances, which poll after poll shows to be the American consensus. As it currently stands, no one in this debate would call abortions rare, since right now we’re up to around 40 million abortions since 1973. “Rare” is a nice sounding talking point for pro-abortion politicians, but nothing else.

    This debate is not going away. It’s not baby boomers that are keeping it going now. It’s teenagers, who have an innate sense for the moral nature of this argument, and the immoral nature of abortion. Look for Roe v. Wade to be overturned before 2015.

  23. Redbus Says:

    A quick addendum to my post:

    When Roe v. Wade is overturned in a few years, this will not automatically make abortion illegal in the 50 states and U.S. territories. Things would simply revert to how they were pre-1973. Some states permitted abortion, while some prohibited the practice. The conversation would then return to the state level where, arguably, it should have stayed. Incidentally, it would appear that more and more believe that the so-called gay “marriage” issue should be decided in the same manner.

  24. Tully Says:

    Your argument about overturning Roe v. Wade not decreasing the number of abortion victims is silly.

    Why? Because you don’t like it? Your follow-on to pre-1973 abortion rates is a complete non-sequitur. Factcheck quite rightly says it is impossible to know the accuracy of the pre-1973 data, nor is it 1973 — there are several widely-available drugs on the market (and black market) today that can be used for induced abortions, no clinic or coathanger required for the desperate, just a major health gamble. Jacob’s claim of 300,000 dead a year is clearly excessive (though 300K extra hospitalizations for abortion-related complications is quite possible) but Boxer’s estimate of 5000 is quite plausible, given the experiences of other countries where abortion is illegal and yet more common than it is in the US.

    Also, even today, are abortions totally “safe”? Women still die from the procedure today

    They also die from complications of pregnancy, and at MUCH higher rates than they do from legal abortion. Legal clinical abortion is unequivocally safer for a woman than carrying or attempting to carry a pregnancy to term. By a full order of magnitude and some change. (For those not familiar with the jargon, that means carrying a pregnancy to term carries a “death risk” for the woman of more than ten times that of legal clinical abortion.)

    IF one naively assumes that all pregnancies that would have otherwise ended in legal abortion would be attempted to carry to term if abortion were outlawed, and if in fact no illegal abortions at all were performed, we’d STILL have a roughly 20-25% increase in maternal mortality simply from the increased mortality risk of carrying those pregnancies to term. P_robably even higher, as a good portion of abortions in America are indeed performed for reasons of maternal health risk, such as history of eclampsia.

    That’s the best-case scenario, but it’s a highly unlikely one. We know from the experience of many other nations that the law would not be obeyed, and that many women would still procure/induce abortions in one form or another. There is no evidence that laws against abortion reduce the actual incidence of abortion in the modern age. Illegal abortion whether by drug or instrument carries a much higher risk of maternal death or injury than legal abortion AND a significantly higher death/injury risk than carrying to term. Both are shown clearly in Latin America, where abortion is almost entirely illegal, and yet abortion rates are actually higher than they are in the U.S. Our abortion prevalance is roughly 24% of all pregnancies, in Latin America it’s roughly 33% of all pregnancies.

    A look at Brazil is informative. Brazil has 2/3rds of our population, abortion is almost entirely illegal, IS prosecuted, and yet they have just as many abortions per year as we do. They also have 250,000 hospital admissions a year for complications from illegal abortions. And those are just the women that open themselves to potential prosecution by going to the hospital — there’s no way to know how many women just tough it out at home and maybe die because they fear prosecution. The penalty is one to three years in a Brazilian prison, and no, the woman is not exempted from prosecution.

  25. Jacob Says:

    Thanks Tully. You really do do that very well.

    And so I conclude:

    In the face of such evidence, it’s disingenuous for opponents of legal abortion to claim a moral high ground campaigning for policy that will not reduce abortions and will severely increase the risk to women’s health. A sincere proponent of life would do better to focus their energy in more productive arenas.

  26. kranky kritter Says:

    Tully did a great job of laying out some relevant facts. Based on those, it is sure reasonable not to expect a substantial diminishment of abortions were RvW overturned.

    But you Jacob, did not lay out much of use. I conclude that you have failed to support anything like a “severe increase.”

    A much better “fact” than studies and comparisons to different countries is to simply acknowledge that we don’t really know what would happen here in America and can really only speculate.

    I still think the best guess is that while we might see a small decrease due to increased difficulty of access, interstate abortion tourism would probably keep the numbers essentially the same. I REALLY don’t believe that we’d see nearly as many “back alley” abortions here as in places like Brazil. The dat from Brazil is certainly instructive, but making direct conclusions from a nation like Brazil is IMo somewhat inapt. Because we’re a very different place, and abortion would remain legal in about 1/2 to 2/3 of states.

    it’s disingenuous for opponents of legal abortion to claim a moral high ground

    For someone who claims to be earnestly seeking a resolution to the abortion issue, you’re astonishingly disrespectul of pro-life views. As a pretty pro-choice guy, it vexes me to see someone pretend to be centrist while also being so disparaging and self-righteous and pedantic. As someone who has spent much time talking with pro-life folks, I at least understand that any claim to moral high ground rests with the heartfelt desire to end the terminations of nascent innocenthuman lives.

    I do not share the moral calculus of these folks, but I have every reason to believe such folks are generally sincere, not disingenuous. The approach you have adopted here stands a pretty much zero chance of shedding beneficial light on such a contentious issue.

    I wish you better luck next time.

    In conclusion,. please note that you started all this with a post that made a ludicrous claim– that everyone would be happy if an amendment were passed guaranteeing the right to an abortion. This is demonstrably false. Absurd on its face, even. Notwthstanding the fact that you tossed in the consolation prize that congress could if they wanted,direct money towards abortion prevention.

  27. jacob.donklephant Says:

    I conclude that you have failed to support anything like a “severe increase.”

    Define severe. How many women have to die unnecessarily for it to be a severe increase?

    …simply acknowledge that we don’t really know what would happen here in America and can really only speculate.

    I never claimed psychic powers, it’s fairly obvious that I’m speculating based on the trends studied around the world.

    The dat from Brazil is certainly instructive, but making direct conclusions from a nation like Brazil is IMo somewhat inapt. Because we’re a very different place, and abortion would remain legal in about 1/2 to 2/3 of states.

    Pro-lifers won’t stop at RvW. If that happens they’ll move on to federal legislation
    What makes us different from Brazil and the rest of the world is that (so far) we have a secular government that enforces the “Creator-endowed rights of man” rather than “God’s Law”.
    Are you seriously telling me you don’t think poor women in rural Mississippi or Kansas are going to be stuck with coat-hanger abortions? I hope you are correct.

    For someone who claims to be earnestly seeking a resolution to the abortion issue, you’re astonishingly disrespectful of pro-life views. As a pretty pro-choice guy, it vexes me to see someone pretend to be centrist while also being so disparaging and self-righteous and pedantic. As someone who has spent much time talking with pro-life folks, I at least understand that any claim to moral high ground rests with the heartfelt desire to end the terminations of nascent innocenthuman lives.

    My earnest resolution is to make abortion legal, federally and permanently. You can call me names for that but it’s the only logical, humane, effective resolution. I am the father of a little girl and I, too, have a heartfelt desire “to end the terminations of nascent innocent human lives”. That is why I want to focus all this wasted energy and money on civil solutions rather than “government solutions”.

    I am not disrespectful of pro-life views, I am pro-life! This is why I feel abortion needs to be legal.

    I am disrespectful of willful ignorance and hypocrisy. I don’t believe you can’t see the difference. Any solution that increases the termination of non-nascent innocent human lives under the guise of “pro-life” is hypocrisy. It’s willfully ignorant to struggle “on principle” for something that WON’T WORK and WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE.

    I suppose I wasn’t clear enough, my ludicrous claim that “everyone would be happy” was intended to mean:

    “if we got off our asses and actually worked to reduce abortions” instead of wasting our time fighting about legality. I don’t happen to agree that the claim is absurd on its face. People who truly have a “heartfelt desire to end the terminations of nascent innocent human lives” would be happier to see a reduction in abortion than a meaningless law.

  28. Mark Says:

    You make the point that woman will always get abortions if they need one. The only issue is whether the procedure is safe. I would take it one step further. Rich woman will always have access to safe abortions, just like they did prior to Roe v Wade. They will simply fly to a state or country where they are still legal.

    This is one of the major reasons the Republican party continues to demagogue this issue. For the people who control the Republican party (AKA the rich), abortion law won’t apply to them.

  29. Mark Says:

    Another point on Republicans. They pretty much had full control of the US government from 2003 to about 2005. They could have passed anything they wanted. But you might note they did not pass an anti abortion amendment, nor an anti gay marriage amendment, nor an anti flag burning amendment.

    The worst thing the Republican party could do would be to ban those 3 things. It would close those issues and they don’t want those issues closed. They need those issues in order to manipulate the masses to vote Republican.

    The Republican party exists to further the issues of rich white males. But there are not enough of them to win elections. So they have to manipulate the masses in whatever way works. Gays, guns, abortions, the flag, drugs, immigrants, prayer in school. These are all hot button issues that the Republicans will never fully resolve because they need the voter turnout that these issues drive in every 2 years. (You may see window dressings on some of these issues, but not much more.)

    You might note that Faux News has turned against Sarah Palin somewhat. This is because although the Republican party needs the fringe to win elections, they don’t want fringe people actually getting too too much real power.

  30. Alex Says:

    Roe v. Wade has already been mostly replaced. The correct case to refer to now is Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) which expanded the rights given in Roe v. Wade. A return to pre-1992 law would be much more strict than today’s law. Then there was a trimester limit that was held strictly, and once certain points were passed states were free to pass any and all restrictions as the states’ right to the new citizen outweighed the mother’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy. Casey put all restrictions of abortion-rights under “strict scrutiny” in other words, the highest level of protection offered in the Judicial field.

    Beyond the point about current law, people talk about how today’s teenagers know that there is a great moral argument to be had over abortion rights. It’s true, there is. Just as there is a great moral argument to be had over war and governance. But I would ask those older than this 20 year old to not put words in the mouths of myself, nor my friends. You see, we are old enough to realize that a “chance to live” is not always the moral thing to do. What if a mother gets pregnant while on a medication that will cause debilitating and painful birth defects to the unborn child? Is it more merciful to carry out the pregnancy and hope against all fact that this once those things won’t happen, or to put a child through a painful and quite possibly short life? Or is it more merciful to terminate a pregnancy?

    I say leave choices about abortion to the mothers. They understand the choice they make, they understand that they might regret making this decision. But honestly, there are times when the termination of a fetus, of a potential human life might just be the merciful, the moral thing to do.

  31. Monica Says:

    How am I supposed to complete my English assignment on finding fallacy in political blogs when all you people keep backing up your sources!? Where are all the non sequiturs and equivocations!? I suppose there were a few hasty generalizations, but I need more please. Don’t make me read anymore politics!

    I do see that the author has a good point, all though I’m extremely pro-life.

  32. Doug Mataconis Says:

    Monica,

    Go over to Malkin’s blog, or DailyKos.

    You’ll find plenty of unsubstantiated pontification going on over there ;)

  33. The Pajama Pundit Says:

    I second Doug’s sentiment. Nooch.

  34. Paul Doyle Says:

    I absolutely agree. Pro-life people seem to be seeing the issue of abortion as an all-or-nothing situation. The fact is that whether or not an abortion is reasonable is entirely circumstantial.

    In some cases, such as teenage pregnancies in which the mother is not fully capable of sustaining herself and a child, forcing her to have the child would in no way benefit the child and it would also likely be harmful to the mother’s health.

    The argument that a child can be put up for adoption may sound reasonable but the fact is that even when adoption works out, such things can have a negative psychological effect on children. Quality should be upheld over quantity; the quality of the mother’s life needs to be supported if a child could not be properly cared for. Abortion is a very ugly thing but it is sometimes the path to the greater good.

    One of the things that bugs me most personally is people who are selectively passionate about issues that encompass more than they are willing to admit. For example, shouldn’t all pro-life people be adamantly anti-war? After all, war kills conscious, sentient people who may be just as innocent as an unborn child.

    The fact is that a child who is saved from an abortion may not be welcomed into the world. The best thing we can do is pause and consider that, regardless of when the fetus is considered “alive,” is make a judgment based on the situation, not be absolutely against abortion.

  35. calico Says:

    I believe that until those against abortion find, find, and implement a way to care for the existing deluge of under-wanted and under-cared-for, they have no right to demand others bring more unwanted children into the world. Did you know there are STILL orphanages in the US? If every single people opposing abortion went out and adopted just one child in state/foster care imagine the good it would do (and I personally would start to take you more seriously).

    Imagine all the good these protesters could do if they just spend 50% of their time at homeless womens’ shelters or orphanages. Or, if they’re so pro-life, imagine if they spent just a little of their time ending pointless wars. Is the loss of an innocent adult life worth nothing compared to that of a 12 week fetus?

    And for those of you who are on the fence about this issue: if they succeed in making it a law a full, legal “person” exists from the time of conception, there will be changes you did not expect. Hormone birth control can work partly by preventing egg implantation; expect to be charged for “abortion” for using it. All pregnancies that end in miscarriages should be investigated to see if the woman was at fault. Imagine a woman who goes to jail for manslaughter because she was so stressed out her body rejected an 8 week old embryo? Would women have to quit their jobs and stay home during the whole pregnancy out of fear the “person” might be hurt? Would they have to prove to bartenders they’re not pregnancy when ordering a mixed drink?

    Also understand that those most in favor of banning abortion do so because their religion told them to. Christian religion also tells us to “go forth and multiply”, not to “waste seed”, and to use sex to procreate. In other words, no birth control or masturbation. If you think I’m exaggerating, check the stance of the Catholic church. Aren’t we just as guilty of killing the “lives” of all those eggs kept from meeting sperm by a condom? What really is the difference between two haploid cells about to meet vs a blob of diploid cells resulting from the meeting?

  36. Pat K. Says:

    I absolutely agree with Calico!
    I was raised Catholic. (Which I am adamantly NOT a part of anymore) Back in the 60′s most families had little stair steps. By this I mean, every 12 to 18 months they had a new addition. Quality vs Quantity. It is a shame that so many did this because the Pope and the Parish Priests told them to. Many women died because they continued to become pregnant. Be fruitful and multiply is supposed to be a blessing. We are given brains to make our own judgements and decisions. What a sad statement about enjoying sex. And I do not believe that any of those families ever got a check from the Vatican for child support!
    And…Yes! Separation of Church and State. Let Doctors attend to their Patients and everybody mind their own business. Most of you have made valid points. Bottom line, we have rights, to be in charge of our own decisions, right or
    wrong. Making mistakes is part of life. But making mistakes is having a child that will not be loved or cared for We will each be judged for our own decisions, and force feeding some one’s issues down another persons only makes most people gag.
    Is it not a sad irony that all those “right to lifers” are also the ones pushing us
    to send more troops to Middle East? In the name of “freedom” yet they are willing to remove our freedoms of our own choices What about the freedom of choice right here.
    This is such an emotional issue, only till we respect our individual rights to choose, what is best for themselves in their situation, will we move forward.
    We need to stop playing the Judge.

  37. Eva Says:

    Thank you so much for this great post. I really like what Pat K. has to say, she really put how I feel about the issue into the right words. This is a debate that will never truly go away, though I believe the one place it does not belong is in politics.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: