Abortion S.L.E.D.
by BecauseHeLives | Published on January 30th, 2008, 5:18 pm | Religion
Well, if you allow abortions for rape, then you have already said that one non-health related reason is acceptable to you.
I've never advocated that abortion is acceptable due to rape. I was simply stressing that health-related and rape abortion reasons are FAR in the minority that women give for having an abortion.
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.
That's because there should not be any non-health reasons that are acceptable reasons for an abortion. Your logic is flawed because you exclude the rights of the baby. All non-health related reasons to have abortion are simply selfish and self-serving reasons.
If one reason is OK, then there is no logical reason to exclude other reasons.
Again your conclusion is flawed because your false premise that you think I endorse abortions for rape.
And the fact is, it is HER body and HER life affected.
It's not just her body. It's her body and the body of the baby. Two persons here with diffeernt DNA. The woman is not the only victim here (if she is a victim at all). Most cases she is just making a self-serving decision which involves infringing on the rights of the baby.
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.
Yeah... these women are held in a maximum security nazi-like holding area where they are forced to spit out babies year in and year out to satisfy the adoption market. When they can no longer produce babies they'll start harvesting their kidneys. Get real.
Hardly a fair comparison when you consider the abortion industry is a multi-billion dollar market. Giving a baby up for adoption is one of the least selfish things a person can do. Besides, its not about adoption but about doing the right thing and not murdering a child.
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.
Some stats would be nice for this statement. Links? Even if true it just goes to show that societies pressures back then were more taboo.
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.
That's a very misrepresented statement. I use adoption as an alternative to abortion. You use it as a means for prospective parents to find a child. Adoption as expliotive? Get real. Planned parenthood exploits millions of women each year and I don't see you whining about that. Perhaps its because maybe you have murdered a few babies in your career?
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.
Because as a mother its her job to protect her children. Killing the child to protect it does not qualify.
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.
Its not a perfect system but its better than planned parenthood.
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.
You are getting stupid. People who sell their babies should be imprisoned.
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.
Education at HOME is the key.
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.
Doesn't make it right though. People don't make good decisions under stressful emotional situations. That's why abortion regret is so high amongst women who had abortions.
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?
Abortion is not a right. Its like trying to argue out of a speeding ticket after you got caught speeding. Do the right thing and take the ticket and learn from it.