Bringing Reason to the Atrocity of Abortion!
|Home||Directories||Human Rights Campaign||Essays & Blog||Facts & Figures||Songs||Contact Me|
The following is the list of arguments in favor of abortion list at amplifyyourvoice.org, along with my responses. (You will note that none of their arguments address preborn human beings -- the victims of abortion.)
10. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.
Does she honestly believe that making abortion legal or illegal has no affect on the number of women getting abortions? Can anyone actually believe that. Making something legal doesn't mean that more people will do it? And she obviously hasn't looked at any numbers. The number of abortions in 1973 (the first year of "legal" abortion) was 0.74 million. In 1974 it was .90 million, and in 1975 it was 1.03 million. There was a clear upward swing in the number of abortions in the first few years after abortion was "legalized" until it tapered off around the beginning of the 1980s. Of course, there are no statistics for the years before 1973, but obviously the numbers were even lower, unless she thinks that the numbers suddenly plunged when it all of a sudden became legal and then started climbing again. And it may be true that 78,000 women die annually from "unsafe" abortions (I do not know this statistic so I will simply take her word for it), but in 1972 the number of women who died from illegal abortions in the U.S. was a whopping 39 (as opposed to 24 from legal abortions). I don't mean to trivialize the deaths of 39 people, but the claim that large numbers of women die from illegal abortions is simply not true in developed, industrialized countries. Most of these 78,000 women, I am sure, died because they were in countries with low health, medical and sanitation methods in general. And, of course, her use of the term "unsafe" abortions implies that there is such a thing as a safe abortion. No abortion is ever safe for the one being aborted!
9. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.
Here we see the classic pro-abortion tactic - attack the people on the other side rather that address the issue. It is true that many people are inconsistent in this way, but does that make it okay to kill developing human beings? Pro-lifers are inconsistent so let's kill babies - oh yes, I see the sense in that!
8. The politicians "pro-lifers" so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not 'pro-life' because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them—and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.
Yep. Keep on attacking the people. That's the way to win your case!
7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.
Correct. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. What does that have to do with anything? Abortion needs to be stopped because it kills innocent children. What does that have to do religion? Why does she even bring this up? There is one simple basis for prohibiting abortions - abortions kill human beings and that is a violation of the most basic of all human rights - the right to life.
6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #2)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.
There is one simple basis for restricting abortion - it is the killing of a human being. We have no interest in "reproductive restrictions" - only in saving the lives of those being killed. Disallowing the killing of people would not deny anyone their birth control or their Viagra. And if somehow it did, shouldn't we still prevent people from killing other people just to have these things?
5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.
The laws do apply to men, too. Men are not allowed to kill their children. Also, what you are saying is that, in the days prior to the Civil War (I am assuming you are from the U.S.), only slave-holders should make laws pertaining to slavery. It is up to every human being to protect the lives of all other human beings. The fact that most of our leaders are men does not in any way give them the excuse to condone killing.
4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth (see #2), should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done?
You jump from 1 in 3 women being victims of sexual violence to 33% of all women being forced to carry out a pregnancy. Every woman who gets raped get pregnant? I don't think so. I'm not being callous about these women's situation, mind you, I am just pointing out the deceptive way you weave your argument.
Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?
Any baby born in the U.S. today (again I am assuming you are in the U.S.) would have a whole list of people waiting to adopt it. The baby would have 100% chance of being adopted.
My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much—the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children… perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.
"The ones who are alive and parentless"? The ones we are trying to save are alive. Did you think that that little one in the womb was dead? I guess it just miraculously "comes to life" when it comes time to be born! And yes, it would be wonderful if I could devote my attention to some of the problems of the world such as orphaned children, but how can I do this while innocent children are being slaughtered around me. We need to stop this brutal atrocity so that we can focus on solving some of the world's other problems.
Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these "child-lovers" should step in and care for these already-born children as well.
3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.
Yes, you have a point here, although I doubt that you can justify the claim that the 1 billion poorest people on earth are female. (Do you just throw these claims out there without any idea whether they are actually true?) It certainly makes it harder for a woman to get a job or an education when she has to take care of children. But that in no way justifies killing her children. Would you say that it is alright for her to kill those children that are already born because of her predicament? That is just not an acceptable answer. We need better solutions than killing people.
2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.
During my own pregnancy—which had been unexpected though joyful up to this point—I was horrified to learn that I had preeclampsia only 25 weeks in. While they were able to save both my daughter and me, she was born at 1 pound, three months premature, and was a medical miracle. Most babies at that weight do not survive; and if they do, they suffer severe complications—as do the mothers, including myself. I was then informed that my risk of it happening all over again was extremely high, and that if there were a next time I may not be so lucky. I am fortunate to have access to birth control, but many women—especially young ones—do not. Preeclampsia alone affects 10 to 15% of all women! There are hundreds of other complications that arise besides preeclampsia that can, and will, result in death as well.
The danger of dying from a pregnancy is, of course, always there. Unfortunately, even with the best of medical care we will never be able to eliminate the risk altogether. In developed countries, such as the U.S., the danger is, thankfully, very small, though - less than 2 hundredths of a percent. Even a tiny percentage is that much too high, of course, but we can only do what we are able to do medically. The important thing is that while there is a small chance that a woman could die from pregnancy, there is virtually 100% chance that the child will die from an abortion.
1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.
Yes the government can tell you that you can't have kidney transplant if it means ripping a kidney out of another person and killing him/her.
The whole point here is that all of your arguments completely ignore the whole point of the abortion issue - abortion kills a little human being. If that is not true, then there is no longer any issue - anyone who wants to have an abortion can have one; there is no basis on which to tell anyone that she can't. (And therefore you do not need any arguments.) If it is true, however, then none of your arguments are even relevant. None of the arguments justify killing a person. So this continues to be the whole issue - does or does not an abortion kill a human being? You have not addressed that question at all here.
Go to your favorite search engine and type in the words "abortion pictures" and see what comes up. Have the courage to take an honest look at what an abortion actually is. You will see the brutalized bodies of little human beings at various stages of prenatal development that have been ripped to pieces in the name of "reproductive choice". If you see a dead deer on the side of the road you acknowledge that you have seen a dead deer. You probably won't know why it died, whether it was an accident, whether it was hunted, whether it was taken down by a predator. No you won't know what happened, but you will not doubt that you have seen a dead deer. If you see a photo of dead bodies laying on an Afghan street in your daily newspaper you may know what happened or not, depending on how much the journalist who wrote the story knew. Even if you know some of the details of how it happened, you may not necessarily know why it happened, who is to blame, or how to stop the violence. But you will not for a moment doubt that you are looking at dead bodies. That much is simply fact - they are dead bodies. Apply the same honesty to your viewing of the pictures of abortions. Don't try to argue away what you don't want to believe because you just don't want to accept it. Just accept the simple truth of what you see. Once you have done that, then just let your humanity come through.