BecauseHeLives wrote:You'll see that reason due to health (which include RAPE) are less than 5.5 % of abortions. You are simply arguing the exceptions instead of the reality. All of the other reasons are self-centered reasons for abortion that could easily be resolved by giving the child up for adoption. The way you speak someone without knowledge would suspect that MOSt abortions are due to the health of the mother or the baby. That is just so misleading.
Well, if you allow abortions for rape, then you have already said that one non-health related reason is acceptable to you. I simply do not understand the logic of saying that you (or anyone other than the woman personally affected) should get to decide which non-health related reasons should be acceptable for abortion. If one reason is OK, then there is no logical reason to exclude other reasons. And the fact is, it is HER body and HER life affected. The idea of forcing women to have babies to satisfy the adoption market for infertile couples is rather sickening. It turns those women into unpaid baby factories for the people who want to adopt.
Worse, you are ignoring history. Prior to the 1960s, virtually all unmarried women gave their children up for adoption. And there were so many that it was a "buyer's market" so to speak for adoptive parents. The reality is that now, unmarried women are far more likely to feel they have to keep their babies. So forcing more women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term (to the extent that is even possible) because you like adoption can be viewed as extremely exploitive. And probably ineffective since most women keep the unwanted babies they have. Surrogate mothers are extremely well paid for their services. Why put a woman who got pregnant accidentally through the problems, inconvenience and danger of a pregnancy and demand that she give that baby up for nothing. Yes, selling babies can also be a really bad idea. But we allow it for surrogate mothers. When a woman with an unplanned pregnancy gives up a baby, the lawyers and adoption agencies make lots and lots of money from the adoptions. But the poor mother is limited to her medical bills.
I think it is pretty obvious that quite a few more women would carry the pregnancy to term for an adoptive couple if she
1. Got to choose which couple got her baby (from a panel of couples), and
2. Could expect to be paid the $20,000 or so that everybody else is making off HER body.
Not all would carry the pregnancy of course, but again, the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is though making contraceptives freely availableto all who want them. Please explain why the fundamentalist preachers work so hard to prevent contraceptives from reaching women who need them! Why did it take years for the morning after pill to be made available, and why in the name of all that is holy do they refuse it to underage girls unless she can get a doctor's prescription? That is crazy because it just causes more unwanted pregnancies.
Poor women often can't afford the $30 or so dollars that oral contraceptives cost, and of course, many women cannot take those drugs because of risk for cardiovascular disease or physical intolerance to them. But the other highly effective methods such as IUDs, diaphragms with spermicidal jelly, tubal ligation, etc. require a physician and can be very expensive. The article you cited noted that up to 8% of women taking oral contraceptives have a failure (that is, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy). The drug companies say 1%. So, who to believe? Doesn't matter. It is still a pregnancy that the woman took the proper steps to prevent and it happened anyway. Having the baby and giving it up for adoption is a horrible option for the woman. She loses her figure, goes through months and months of discomfort (not to forget having to buy temporary clothing), and then will lose her own baby--something most women are instantly bonded to at birth--and our society demands she get absolutely nothing in return.
And when it comes to their own lives and their own bodies, many women--even those who profess to be anti-abortion--will have abortions rather than let their lives be terribly disrupted that way.
Why not leave abortion decisions to the woman and fund contraceptives and contraceptive education so that very few abortions are ever wanted?
What would you think of that solution?
