To Those in Favor of Banning Abortion:
- What about rape and incest? Would you truly require a woman to carry a child to term if she didn't consent to its conception?
In the case of rape or incest, it should be the mother's choice. After all, abortion issues are about the right of the woman to choose what to do with her own body. In the case of incest and rape, this right to choose was taken away from her.
She should be given counseling, because statistics show a disproportionate number of women who have abortions end up with terrible psychological side-effects at some point, including PTSD.
- If there is a choice between the child's life and the mother's, do you still agree with the ban? (essentially always choosing the child)
The mother should get to choose, because in this case, it is self-defense. Yet some mothers would choose to give up their life for their child, and should have that right.
- It is true that even if the fetus is not a person, it would be in time. For some, this alone makes abortion wrong. In such an argument, is murder equated with preventing the child's birth? And if so, how is abortion worse than not choosing not to mate when you would? (thereby having the same ultimate effect)
In the case of a conception that has already taken place, the the child's right to life comes into play. When a child has not yet been formed, there is no right to life, because there is not yet a child.
Since no one can honestly state whether or not, for sure, a zygote/fetus has a soul, awareness, or consciousness of some form, it is important to err upon the side of treating someone/something we know WILL become a human, like a human from the beginning.
If I must make a mistake in the treatment of a person, it is to treat a person as a person even if they aren't yet one... rather than to treat someone who is a person, as if they are NOT one.
But until the sperm and cell meet and form the first stages, it is obvious that they are NOT a person, and thus they have no right to life.
- What about the overall economic and societal effect such a policy will have? More unwanted children forced upon reluctant, typically poor parents will undoubtedly result in population growth, increase in crime, and a generally less happy populace.
I'm curious as to what proof there is that these effects will happen? Has abortion "rights" really done anything to decrease crime, or to decrease the numbers of poor people having children?
From what I've seen, most of the people having abortions are young girls who are being coerced into them by parents or their boyfriend. In cases of mature women, they are often coerced into them, as well. The same goes with adoptions.
The threat that a child will "ruin your life" is coercion. The threat that you will be unable to raise a child simply because you are young or poor is also coercive.
Furthermore, it smacks of discrimination to hold up the poor as people who should have the unadulterated right to child prevention that has a high likelihood of leaving psychological damage for the woman. This isn't
against Jude, this is a societal
attitude, that the people who get abortions are all poor, and that the poor should be getting them/ have access to them. It has a certain "breeding like rats" kind of connotation in society, and this attitude should really be discouraged.
If we want the poor to have the ability to have fewer children if they so desire
, then a program that allows them easier access (affordability) to birth control methods that don't involve the taking of a life is a better choice. Not only from a social standpoint, but also from a psychological standpoint for the people who must make this decision.
- If you think the act is categorically wrong and comparable to murder, should the United States make a crusade of overthrowing all of the governments around the world that allow it? Such a viewpoint equates Abortion to mass Infanticide, and in some places like Cuba Abortion is ridiculously common and even makes some 'civilized' nations guilty of genocide (considering minorities get abortions far more often).
No, we should not. After all, we have enough problems on our own. Before we run around "policing" others, we should deal with our own issues. We really have no business policing the world while we have so many suffering in our own country. We should clean up our own backyard, or get our own plank out so to speak, before we go plucking at other nations' specks.
As far as the argument of choice, I agree that it should be a woman's choice.
In response to enforced matrimony on the part of the state, the problem here lies with the fact that she decided to get pregnant to begin with. Therefor, she has already chosen for herself, about what to do with her body. If she wasn't raped or it wasn't incest, then she has made the choice to risk pregnancy and all it entails.
Once that choice is made, then the woman should be held to the same standards as men are. If a man engages in sexual activity, he is bound by law to provide for that child. Like it or not, he can only get out of an unexpected pregnancy if the woman chooses to have an abortion (at this time, since it's legal for women to abort, but not for men to bail on their children financially).
This should equally be the case for women, that if they choose to engage in sexual activity, they should have to face the consequences. This is true for men right now, they are enforced to paternity by the state, and no one is out there crusading that men should have the right to run off and not deal with the results of a pregnancy if he doesn't want to (quite the contrary, a whole movement is rising regarding better enforcement of child support responsibilities).
The argument of an unborn as a parasite again is a moot point. It is a 'parasite' with a right to life, and the mother has already made the decision to take the risk of having a 9 month 'parasite' in her body. Therefor, the right of the child to life trumps the right of the mother to comfort. Obviously, rape and incest are cases in which she did not have the chance.
I still see this as killing, but unlike in the case where the mother is killing for her own convenience or to escape responsibility for her own actions, it is not MURDER. All murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder.
I support euthanasia, except that I have the same concern that people would be coerced into ending their lives in the way that so many women are coerced into adoptions and abortions now. It's a very difficult call to say that some should be forced to live a life of abject misery in order to prevent others from being coerced into ending their lives. Or should we risk that some might be coerced in order that others might have the right to choose?
These are not simple questions, IMO.