BigBallinStalin wrote:
It's a question of morals, which are subjectively defined; therefore, whenever someone takes the position that ABORTION IS WRONG, DENY PEOPLE THE CHOICE TO DO THIS, then that someone assumes that they know what's best for everyone. That they somehow know the objective truth.
(By morals, I'm talking about morality in the normative sense.)
If one would like to (or has) described why people think it's wrong, then kudos to them
I have tried.
Abortion does not fit with my belief system. However, not everyone shares my values.
BUT, there are really 3 parts to this question.
#1 What is abortion?. Many who post do not realize that any loss of a pregnancy prior to 20 weeks is considered an "abortion". This includes "spontaneous abortions", commonly considered miscarriages AND "surgical abortion" (there are some other terms, but that's the basics, the most commonly used medical terms).
Most statistics.. those things you see trotted out about the numbers of babies killed, etc take the records for procedures. This includes a D & C, other procedures, which are often used BOTH to terminate a pregancy and to remove an already dead fetus.
Soooo... though almost all of you are quick to say "we don't include miscarriages"... the fact is they are not distinguished.
A "voluntary" or "elective" abortion is allowed up to 3 months. That time was picked for 3 reasons. Before that point, miscarriages are very, very common. (figures range from 20% to over 50%) and, because at that point, while there is something that looks physically like a tiny infant (about the size of a pea, with some variation), it is not considered to have the responses, etc that make us human. From a privacy perspective, it also makes sense because that is when many women begin to "show". (some never really do...)
AFTER 3 months, abortions are still allowed for a variety of reasons. You can say the reasons are too lenient or whatever, but they are not just "elective" or "voluntary" procedures. I do not want to get into that part. I mention it for clarity.
AFTER 20 weeks, the term is "still birth" and "induced labor" is more usually the term used than "abortion". Again, the induction can be for many reasons. At this point, hospitals do record deaths, etc. Even so, as with D & C and so forth, the more extreme right to lifers like to take statistics for procedures and not intent. So, for example, they will call an induced labor done because the mother was having an elevated blood pressure or other conditions that absolutely endanger the child and mother both, sometimes in a last-ditch attempt to possibly save the child, sometimes just to try and save the mother (knowing the child will not survive or has almost no chance to survive), "abortion". Most people would, when questioned say "no, that is not an abortion". Nevertheless, they will still often pull up statistics that do include such procedures because they don't bother actually investigating what the data means.
If you see references to "the holocaust", and such ... there is a very good chance the statistics they refer to include a lot of things just about everyone here (a few exceptions) rejects.
#2. Is death the worst thing for a child?I, many people argue "no". Having to live in constant pain is a line I might draw. Others might draw it elsewhere.
#3 Can society afford to let every child be born?.
This is the most heart-wrenching, the trickiest and the question the right wing utterly tries to ignore. The REAL truth is "no, we cannot".
Note, I am not talking about some esoteric "ecofreak" ideas about needing population control. (that is part of this for some people, but I want to set that aside for more immediate concerns right now). I am referring to what happens to kids who are born into homes where they are not wanted, where the parents are just "too busy" or preoccupied with their own issues to properly care for their children. Prisons are full of kids who, if we are honest, the world would be better off without. I do NOT believe we should tell people they cannot have children, but if they have made that decision themselves... I am not sure we have the right to subject the child to living in that home. I am not sure as a society, it is in our interest to force people to have children they really do not want. Our obligation is to do all we can to ensure that
when they have a child, they are prepared,but not to force them to raise a child they do not want.
Adoption? At this point someone usually brings up adoption. Again, personnally, I laud those who do that. However, in adoption there is no gaurantee, either. Even with the best of screening, adoptive kids still wind up abused, etc. But, worse, many... particularly those who are not white or nearly white and children with any kind of medical issue are not adopted. Some turn out OK, but ... Anyway, even bearing a child for adoption is more responsibility than many want. If they cannot stay off drugs and alchohol, are not going to eat correctly, etc....
The real truth is that having a child is a privilage. Raising a child takes a lot of work. If you are not fully ready and able... well, truth is no one is really "fully ready and able" (maybe after the 5th one ...). But, when you force someone to be a parent who is absolutely not ready, only some will manage to "step up" to the challenge.
Even if they are willing to try, it is very tough to raise a child as a teen or even just a single parent. Look at the employment statistics. The right wants everyone to be responsible, work hard, etc... well, having a child when you are not ready gets in the way of that. Many single parents DO wind up on government support. Many of those parents are wonderful people who do a great job of raising their kids. Supporting them is a good deal for society, in other words. BUT for that to work, the parent has to be fully willing. And, living under support is not the same as going out and being a fully independent (even wealthy) wage-earner.
Finally, the case that makes more than a few people angry with the far right and the place where they are truly hypocritical is when it comes to children with serious disabilities. I have read comments ranging from "God always chooses life" to "every life is worth living". Well, sorry. God does NOT "always choose life". God himself allowed death to happen. And, he allows suffering and pain, disease and many ills. (to say otherwise is to say God is not in control.. a discussion for another thread) As a Christian, as a mother, as the relative of some SEVERELY disabled children, I am not sure that is always the case. Again, I am in no way advocating forced euthanasia or abortion. However, what right does anyone have to say that you have to have this child who will only live hooked up to a dozen machines, etc. As a society, can we even afford to keep maintaining these children at the cost of millions of dollars when other children cannot even go to see the dentist?
The truth is that if the world were perfect, there would be no abortion, there would never be a child born who was not wanted, healthy and fully loved. This is not, however that perfect world.
Unless and until you are fully and completely able and willing to truly discuss and answer those questions.. not to just stomp off and claim "its just about murder", then you have no right to voice an opinion, never mind tell other people how to live their lives.
