Abortion is one of those things that everyone has an opinion about. This is only my humble notion.
There is a particular problem with the sexes when it comes to pregnancy and abortion. Women have a physical obligation towards a pregnancy, while men can walk away without being seemingly affected by this, perhaps, one night stand, or the girlfriend he may not have loved enough. Was it not the choice of both the man and the woman to engage in intercourse? Perhaps not, but either way it is always an option for the man to walk away from it, and never the woman’s, unless she chooses to abort, that is. Why is it that she is left with a physical announcement of her mistake while he can walk away without worry of anyone knowing? Chances are, if she is getting an abortion, she did not intend on getting pregnant in the first place, unless there are medical complications.
To be pregnant is the clearest indicator of woman-ness, that which makes us the so-called ‘weaker sex.’ Interestingly enough, she is in fact the bearer of human beings. Why society has chosen for her to be the weaker of the two sexes is something else to be explored, but the choice to have an abortion, because of the woman’s responsibility towards humanity, perhaps more so than the man’s, abortion is never an easy decision.
The grand issue of abortion spans well past the moral obligations; there are actually lives beyond those of the unborn children, lives of people who deserve consideration. If it is physically dangerous for a woman to give birth, as in life threatening, is abortion still wrong?
Whether it is legal or not, women are going to have abortions, at least until our culture changes so that having an abortion is only something needed for medical reasons. At this point, however, for abortion to be illegal would mean more back alley abortions, would mean more unnecessary deaths of women who, for one reason or another, were frightened of having a child. In my own opinion, many of the reasons lead back to the ever-present feeling of inferiority or inadequacy among women simply because they are women.
Adoption is an option, many say. But how many children are already in foster care in the U.S. alone? According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 500,000 children are currently up for adoption. I wonder how many people who spout this line, "Adoption is the option," have actually adopted chidren.
I understand the medical risks of having an abortion, and so do the women who get them. If all that is worth it, then there must be something significantly more frightening than birth driving them towards what is really a difficult decision. Abortion is legal because, in reality, it needs to be.
Awesome post, I completely agree. *applause*
---------------------------------------
Please see my recent blog post, "What's wrong with having sex at a young age?": http://www.progressiveu.org/033504-whats-wrong-having-sex-young-age
How about both parties wait to have sexual relations until they are ready for children?
Everyone knows that even when they have protection, it is not always 100% effective. In other words, why take even a small chance in getting pregnant, and then being left with that kind of decision to make...
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!
1. It isn't always the woman's choice to have sex, so how about we have a conversation of rape babies? Although this is rare, it is possible.
2. You act like sex is a bad thing. It's not - it's actually (shocking, I know) a good thing! Sex is not just about making babies. It is a physical expression of love, it is a part of being human, it is pleasure, it is tension-releasing, it is relaxing; it is good. Here's an article you might be interested in:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/11/15/study-says-teen-sex-leads-to...
(Try and actually read it before you respond back with more evangelical opinions. I grew up in that world - I know everything you have to say on it...)
3. People are going to have sex, which is not a bad thing (it actually is quite healthy for human beings to have sex on occasion, despite what you might like to believe). The point of having sex much of the time is not to get pregnant. If a girl gets pregnant, much worse things could happen to her by keeping the baby than if she does what we like to call, "Go for a long, bumpy ride." If a woman gets pregnant, sad to say, it hugely affects her career, often negatively, unless she is one of those rare women who find ways to have a life in addition to being a mother. There is no reason why women should make all the sacrifices for the children while men are still able to pursue their dreams of having a career, etc., unless, you know, she actually does want to be a stay at home mom, which some women do want that. That's fine. But if they don't want to, they shouldn't have to just because they are women. This confinement of commitment and raising a child is unbelievable. Many women are not ready for it. It would also be unfair to the child to enter into that kind of world.
4. Please do not spout "adoption" at this argument. That issue has already been addressed. No kid should grow up in an orphanage; too many do.
5. You are right in that protection is not always 100% effective. However, good protection is effective enough to be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with another person and not get pregnant.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
AMAZING!!!
It's always good to hear about the reasons why we should keep abortion instead of just all the cliche bad things that I've heard a million and a half times...
Ok I agree that women tend to "get the short end of the stick" in the sense that once she's pregnant there she has to face the social and physical consequences but that is biology. I acknowledge that women don't have the escape option that men do but abortion is not the answer.
Here's the way I see it: do you know anyone who would support the killing of a newborn or a toddler to make someone's life easier? There are 4 differences between a fetus and a toddler. Without these differences they would be exactly the same. There is Size, Location, Environment and Degree of dependency. (Think of the acronym SLED)
1) size
Everyone knows that a fetus is smaller than a newborn. Sure, embryos are smaller than newborns, and adults, but how does that make a differance? Is that to say that the larger people, are more valuable than the smaller ones? Men, are typically larger than women, that doesn't make them more valuable, or that they deserve more rights. Size doesn't equal value.
2) level of development
I hear this one all the time as to why abortion is alright. The fetus isn't as developed as a newborn. Ok sure, but a toddler is also less developed than a 14 year old, and a 14 year old is less developed than an adult. A toddler doesn't have a functioning reproductive system. Why should a 14 year old have more right to life than a 4 year old? Should only the developed have a right to life. If this were true, if brain development or higher consciousness makes us more valuable humans, then those with high IQ should rule over those with lower IQ. Or we could put the entire world on a bell curve. The curve would start out as nothing, when you are born, with you being close to an animal status, and then slowly curve upward as you developed, and you reach a "human status" then go back down as you decline in age, and again, you lose your human citizenship. Development has no relation to the right to life.
3) Environment
Let's say that you are on a plane to Paris. You get on the plane and 6 hours later you get off the plane in Paris. Did the fact that you changed environment make you any more or less of a person? If traveling across the world doesn't change who you are than how does traveling 8 inches down the birth canal change anything?
4) Degree of dependency
Does the fact that fetus are dependent on change their right to life? If than those with diabetes don't have right to life either because they depend on insulin to keep them alive. What about kidney patients? Do we kill them because they are not human? what about newborns who are still completely dependent on their parents to provide? What about the elderly who often depend on others to help them? Even my mother was put in a nursing home for assistance I would still consider her human because being independent does not define human life.
The point of this while there are differences between the born and the fetus they do not define the status of life. I have great sympathy for those who's lives are changed by an unexpected pregnancy, but that doesn't give them the right to take away life any more than unexpected circumstances would give them the right to take away the life of a toddler.
You say that "I wonder how many people who spout this line, "Adoption is the option," have actually adopted children."
I can guarantee that it is a smaller percentage than the number of people who spout "Abortion is the option" who have actually been aborted.