Anti-Abortionists' Claim to Being "Pro-Life" is a Classic Big Lie
The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."
Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."
The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life -- lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Assume responsibility for your actions, what a cliché. I'll be the one to go ahead and say what everyone's thinking. Humans have a physical need to engage in sexual intercourse. Believe what you will, but don't be mistaken. Males are attracted to females for one reason, genitals. It's basic design, whether that design is by creation or evolution is for you to decide. By design, we are only attracted to the opposite sex to meet our physical needs and reproduce. In this day and age, it's simply impractical to follow through with a pregnancy whenever you feel the need to engage in intercourse. Whether you're fourteen or forty four, we have the same design, we have the same needs. Now, this is how contraceptives chime in. Statistics are a fickle thing, no matter what precautions you take, accidents happen. Men and women both have the rights to physically satisfy, not only themselves, but each other. However, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a happy couple, newlyweds perhaps, take every precaution to avoid a pregnancy. The pill, the shot, an IUD perhaps, John makes an appointment for a vasectomy, and, after all of this, he still wears a condom. Let's continue this charade and say that said condom breaks midway through the lovely evening these two are about to enjoy, and, consequently, Stephanie finds out she's pregnant. It happens every day, couples are devastated and families are torn apart. A woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion . I'm not going to ensue with some sob story about how a young girl was raped and either undergoes an abortion or delivers a baby as a result of a sex crime . I'm not going to say this doesn't happen, that would be ludicrous, however I feel that a much more realistic approach would better sway the opposing viewpoints. Abortion is legal, and that's how it will remain. Abortion is not murder. If you think that aborting a fetus is murder, that falls on your ethics, however I am astounded at some of the replies on this topic. Charging women who are having abortions with murder? That's truly insane, and to those of you out there that have something to say, if you are so conflicted with yourself that you can't form a logical opinion, please, just don't say anything at all.
Having a child is not "giving up your happiness or well being" that is just a selfish b.s claim for anyone to make. I understand some woman no some people do not want to have kids that is fine nothing wrong with it your choice by far, however take responsibility for the actions you do with someone else. so you didn't want kids aren't ready to have them all great excuses to use when trying to get rid of a child of course. so it would be just as effective for a rapist or murder to say "Oh i just wanted to kill that person because he/she looked at me wrong" or "She was just asking for me to have my way with her because she is good looking" all meaningless selfish reasons to do such acts.
As for rap pregnancies, I am truly sorry that we have such disgusting and ill people out there but what gives you the right to say that that baby in you will be anything like your attacker? you don't know and i get it you many not love the child as you would if you were planning with your husband or whatever the case i get that but would it be right for you to kill that baby just because he/she is fathered by someone you can take your really hatred out on??
Teenage pregnancies, one if you are old enough to have sex your old enough to know the responsibilities of the consequences having unsafe sex brings. There are no other reasons, i am sorry, but sex ed shouldn't be the only class all teens must take but hell lets step it up a notch and put a parenting class in there to show just how hard it is to be a parent and i am not talking about bring in baby dolls that cry every two minutes no the real deal. Bring mothers who have accepted their responsibilities and are doing what they need to do for their children. and if they still want to fool around then that's on them and their parents.
The government will never be able to have control over what anyone can or can not do with there bodies or personal lives why? because we as the people of this fine country have a right to over through any form of unfair and unjustified government. i don't think or i would hope we will never come to needing to do that. making abortion illegal will only be keeping people from taking a life that has no voice or well to fight on his/her own yet. THAT IS ALL your rights as a women and as a individual are all still there.
I can prove it. (Before you reply, read the entire post)
1st do you think murder is wrong? If yes, continue reading. If no, go away.
The unborn are human. Proven by the law of Bio-Genesis- Living things reproduce only after their own kind. Its impossible for humans to produce offspring that are not human, but later become human.
You say, they are human, but their not persons.
The only differences between us, and an unborn: Size, Level of development, environment , and degree of dependency.
Size: Large people are not more human than small people
Level of Development: a 4 year old is no less human than a 40 year old because of development
Environment: A newborn in an incubator is not less human than a child elsewhere
Degree of Dependency: People on insulin are less viable but no less human
That shows that the unborn are people
The argument for abortion on the basis of non-personhood is valid. Personhood requires the ability to understand and act under a moral code. Embryos are not persons. The problem with this arguement is that you cannot hang the fate of a human on personhood. To do so, you must then also accept the killing of the mentally deficient, infants through (in many cases) teens , coma patients, etc. Further you would have to ask if you meet the qualifications for personhood if you are drunk, asleep, unconcious, or otherwise mentally impaired. Should it be legal to kill someone as long as they are sleeping? You are not able to understand or act under a moral code when you are asleep, so you cannot have personhood at that time. You will presumably re-gain the qualifications of personhood upon waking; so maybe that counts as close enough. Now you violate the arguement. If potential personhood is now the requirement, any human must be presumed to have the status of person until presented with evidence to the contrary with no hope of ever achieving personhood. Under this requirement, abortion is wrong because it kills a potential person. Arguements about killing other groups of non-persons is omitted as irrelevant to the current issue.
The real issue of abortion, is at what point does the right of the baby (fetus, tissue, potential person, growth, whatever you wish to call it) to live impinge on the basic rights of the mother that carries it significantly enough to warrant the denial of the baby's (qualified as above) right to life. I agree with hierarchal Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness and further assert that conflicting rights can only be weighed on equal tiers. ie. the right to life of the baby can only be challenged by the right to life of the mother. In such case, the mother would have the moral right to choose to live and extinguish the life of her child . In all cases it is killing another human being ( murder ), but killing another human being (murder) is not always morally wrong.
I don't think asking someone to assume responsibility for her actions is too much to ask. In the end, it only takes nine months to carry a child and give it up for adoption. You are saying it is OK to kill the child so that the mothers "life" isn't thrown away? Please -- Nine months of putting a kink in a social life is hardly comparable to being put to death by dismemberment. Abortion is being used by people as a way not to pay the piper. If you don't want children now, don't make them!
If clinical abortion becomes illegal , then people will seek other methods, some potentially harmful.
Also, it's wrong to assume that a only a woman is responsible for her actions. In cases of rape , for example, a woman has a possibility of becoming pregnant, even if it's a low percentage. What do you say to this woman? "You're responsible for your own actions"? Even if you were to tell her to give it up to adoption , you have no right to tell her to endure 9 months of pregnancy , carrying a part of the rapist and the memory, plus excruciating childbirth.
I only speak of this because I have a friend who was in the exact situation described. She got an abortion and is now in good mental and physical health .
There are three choices: birth control, babies , or abortion . For the pro-life side the first choice is babies. For the pro-choice side the first choice is birth control. Nobodies first choice is abortion.
So is a human in development, also known as an embryo or fetus, among other names depending upon point of development, not human? But they are. No real scientist or doctor would deny that. Well, are they not beings? Do they not exist? Are they not real? Are they not present? Then how can you physically remove the imaginary?
Now, to the middle part; the issue is about the rights of two human beings: a mother and a child. That's not even debatable since any doctor worth their degree must admit that the child is a living human being from the beginning. It's high school biology.
To the beginning, giving birth is not a sentence. It is a consequence, but a deserved one (as all true consequences are). And of course, being pro-life refers to the actual, real quality of life; not the whimsical, transitory one as in: 'get a life'; though we are pro-that as well.
Now, where the birth of a child actually threatens the actual life of the mother, almost no one believes abortion shouldn't be considered. But it still must be treated as any other killing.
Interestingly, in the Declaration of Independence, the three mentioned inalienable rights are listed in a peculiar order: almost as if there's a priority. [understated] For if one's happiness takes precedence over your property, right to speak freely, or even life, I can see why there might me a little mix up at the courthouse.
Don't want an abortion? Fine. Don't have one. However, don't use government power to force everyone else to live by your biblical edicts. That is immoral. America isn't a democracy. It is a constitutionally- limited republic. That means the limits are on the government, not the people.
Today's conservatives hate America and America's founders, because they're incapable of living in a "free" society where everyone is capable of making choices for themselves.
Pro-life means pro Human life. Those that are already living. Not an embryo nor protoplasm.