It's an issue that has been dealt with over and over again. And yes, I am one of those people who have a very strong opinion on the issue, and don't worry, I will tell you why.
I truly believe that abortion, in every way shape and form, is wrong. A baby is a living thing, at every moment during the pregnancy. When a woman has a miscarriage, she mourns the loss of her baby. Why? Because her baby was a living human, and the loss of a child is a very real thing for a mother.
What really gets to me is when women say that laws against abortion are supported by men who want control over a woman's body. This is a ridiculous statement. The basic lesson here: how a baby is made. Men play a very important in this process, and feel a very real bond to the baby, even before the child is born. It is not man's choice that women carry the child. So just because women have been blessed with this opportunity, they should control the situation? This is in no way fair to men at all. Father's have feelings, and should be a part of every decision concerning their children.
Just because women have the ability to bear children does not mean that they should control the child. Contrary to popular belief, a pregnant women does not own the baby inside her, it is the dependent child of two people, and a life in its own right.
Lawmakers are not trying to take away women's rights, or control them in any way, they are simply trying to save lives. That is what a fetus is, a life. So my belief is that there is no such thing as pro-life, because in essence, aren't we all pro-life? None of us go around killing people that are annoying or inconvenient to us because we choose to. We allow people to live, because most of us recognize that life is something that is precious, and not something to be taken lightly.
So abortion is wrong, plain and simple. End of story, We don't go around killing people on the streets, why should we be allowed to go around killing people who haven't even had the opportunity to walk yet?
Liz- a woman who is pro-life and is not afraid that her rights are being threatened
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
First Point: I believe the Pro-Life argument is a religious one, and here's why: Not everyone believes that the soul or human consciousness enters the womb at conception. Some people and religions believe that it comes at birth. If there is no human consciousness in the zygote or embryo, then it is not yet a human.
Second Point: Making abortions illegal will not prevent women from having them. Before the procedure was legal, it was not uncommon for scared pregnant women to use wire coat hangars to impale their bodies. Some didn't survive. Others were able to find quack doctors who would perform the "abortion" for them. Some were maimed for life because of it.
Third Point: Making abortions illegal only makes them illegal for those of us who are not rich. When they were illegal in the past, rich women were able to leave the country to obtain an abortion somewhere it was legal.
But my question to you is: if abortion is criminalized as murder as you would have the United States do, what would be an adequate punishment for the perpetrator (the woman)? And what for the doctor (if there is one)?
To your first point, as just a commenter, not everyone who is pro-life is religious. This is commonly over-looked. There are atheists who find abortion morally wrong or just naturally wrong. If you need proof, you could google atheist and pro-life.
Second point is why I believe abortion should be legal (but still is not moral). I really don't think laws are going to instill a morality onto a population.
I'm not saying it is a theistic belief, but a "religious" one as I feel it must be based on a faith in when the fetus is determined to be a human being. Unless there is some new completely sound scientific way I've yet to hear about where they can actually determine at what point a fetus is imbued with human consciousness.
Well at what point does a small baby, after birth, develop a functioning human conscience? I haven't heard definitive findings on that- on when exactly that human conscience embedding time period, but it's perfectly wrong to kill small babies because they are outside of the womb and have the potential to have a conscience such as us observing them. We don't have a completely sound scientific way of determining that for a person outside of the womb just as we do not have a way to determine that for a fetus inside the womb. It is just as based on faith that a person outside of the womb has a human conscience, yet their right to live is partly based on that faith and it is acceptable.
A religious belief does pertain to a theistic one, as a religious belief does coordinate with respecting some existence of God.
What exactly is your definition of abortion? I think of it as terminating a child that would have otherwise lived, but I like to be clear on others views when I read their writing.
I wouldn't really say abortion is so much a religious issue. I would say it is a moral issue, not everyone bases their opinion off of religion's view of abortion.
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!
I would define abortion as killing a child who would have otherwised lived. But the trick to that definition is that there is no real way to tell if the fetus is going to die or not, people can survive against the odds.
Abortion is a religious issue, but not strictly a religious issue. I believe that many different people can find their own interests and reasoning behind the abortion issue.
And even if women continue to have abortions if it was made illegal, that doesn't mean we still shouldn't make it illegal. People still use cocaine, have illegal surgeries, and do numerous other illegal things that can harm their bodies.
Plus, making abortions unavailble for women would decrease the amount of unsafe sex, and decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies in general.
Have you honestly ever met a woman who thought of abortion as a form of birth control? I really don't know what else to say to that statement about a positive correlation between a decrease in the availability of abortions and a decrease in the amount of unsafe sex or unwanted pregnancies. It seems like a pretty naive assumption, one that is not grounded in reality.
I think few people would contest based on your definition of abortion. Usually, the child is only viable in the third trimester, and I don't think I know anyone, even pro-choice people, that agree with third trimester abortions. The exception would be set for risking the mother's life, but at that point, they'd deliver the kid and try to save them both.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I am going to decree that any argument that uses the words "plain and simple" is not a progressive argument. Plain and simple.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I truly believe that abortion, in every way shape and form, is wrong.
I truly believe that abortion, in every way shape and form, is just fine.
A baby is a living thing, at every moment during the pregnancy.
I will agree with you on that point: it is a living thing, not a being or a person.
When a woman has a miscarriage, she mourns the loss of her baby.
Not always. I've met many women who miscarried unwanted pregnancies, and they are very happy about it.
The basic lesson here: how a baby is made. Men play a very important in this process,
But obviously their role is relatively minor. They ejaculate. That's the end of their contribution.
A woman must go through nine months of back-breaking pregnancy and grueling labor and birth. Obviously, her contribution is greater and more important than his.
and feel a very real bond to the baby, even before the child is born.
Again, not always. Many men run off when faced with a pregnancy, and many more go without ever knowing that they have children. If a woman never tells a man that she is pregnant, he can not form a bond.
It is not man's choice that women carry the child. So just because women have been blessed with this opportunity, they should control the situation?
Absolutely, because pregnancy happens to their bodies, and there is no way to compromise on a pregnancy: either the woman has it or she doesn't. If the man and woman disagree, there's no way for both to win. So the woman should get the final say, because it's her body.
I didn't choose to be a fertile female, so I should have the same right to control what happens to my body as anyone else. I have no legal right to force my husband to give me his blood, or his kidney, or his sperm, so why should he have any legal right to force me to give him a baby? Such laws are an absurd violation of women's basic human rights.
Just because women have the ability to bear children does not mean that they should control the child.
It also doesn't mean that women should lose the right to control their bodies during pregnancy.