Friday, February 20, 2009

Abortion, What is the Choice?

Pro-choice, think about this term a bit. It is a term that declares that pro-abortionists admit that the procedure is primarily an elective procedure and not a necessary one intended to address the health of the mother. If they intended on it being a therapeutic procedure then there would not be a question of choice involved. Cosmetic surgery can be said to be therapeutic also but no one will claim that it is a necessary procedure but one of choice.

This is not to say that pregnancy can not effect the health of the mother. Only the foolish would make that claim. We do need to distinguish the difference between a temporary health problem and a permanent health problem though. The very fact that a woman is pregnant can be considered as a health risk but that would not be enough to justify her having an abortion.

Another thing we need to take into consideration when talking of health risks is the recognition of its possibility of occurrence. We live in an existence where there is no absolutes thus we need to consider whether or not the risk is a significant factor or not in any particular case. If the risk was insignificant then it could only be declared that a doctor was practicing an unethical medical procedure if he performed an abortion, for he would be taking the life of a human being without cause.

This alone should tell us that the idea of abortion as being moral needs more thought. The mother is submitting to a procedure that goes against the grain of the very nature of her existence and being. It’s a decision that she will remember all of her life just as giving birth is something a woman will always remember.

If there be a choice that a woman can make, it is the choice of the memories she chooses to have in regards to this decision. She will have the memory of a birth and seeing a child grow up or the memory of an aborting the life of a human being and never knowing what being a mother to that child would be like.

On the other side of the coin pro-lifers make no bone about their stance. They believe that the human being inside of the mother deserves to live. Another thing about them is that they’ll proudly accept the term of being anti-abortion

8 comments:

Sugarbabe said...

Adam and Eve sure stired up a mess for the rest of us didn't they? I rarely eat an apple without feeling guilty.. lol..Should we bless the apple or curse them? If not for the apple we may not be here in this world as we are.. And now days when I look around I can see where a fig leaf could be used in todays dress code..

Karen Howes said...

I agree with what you say in your last post, about "pro-life" and "pro-choice" being emotionally-charged terms used for their propaganda value. I now prefer "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion." They're honest and neutral.

However, see how pro-abortion folks react when you call them "pro-abortion." They will strenuously object, "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-CHOICE!" To which I respond, "The 'choice' you're supporting is the choice to have abortions. Therefore, you're pro-abortion." And why would anyone object to being called "pro-abortion" unless they know, on some level, that abortion's a moral wrong?

The Griper said...

the terms, karen is also how debates are known by. either you are for the issue in question or against the issue in question. thus pro or anti "the issue"

The Griper said...

he laughs at sugarbabe's remark, yup that ol' apple sure did stir up a mess.

The Griper said...

and yes karen there are times when abortion can be said as moral.
example:
if a pregnancy is killing the mother than abortion in that case would be a situation of self-defense. she has as much right to life as that human within her does.

Karen Howes said...

Hey Griper,

I disagree with your last statement-- it's not self-defense to kill a baby, for ANY reason-- the baby is still innocent. The life of the mother and the life of the baby should both be preserved, since they're equal. And considering that fetuses as young as 5 months can now be viable, I don't think there IS a situation in which it would be necessary to kill the child to save the mother.

The Griper said...

as i said karen, if the pregnancy is "killing" the mother. it is self-defense then, just as it would be self-defense if someone was trying to kill you but you killed them first.

but i will agree with you that if both can be saved then no.

i will also agree that with the medical advances that have occurred that the likelihood of my scenario is less today than it used to be. but as long as the possibility exists we need to consider that fact.

Gigi said...

To the first comment, it wasn't the apples fault! lol. Satan tempted Adam and Eve, not the apple. I think its so sad how people degrade human life....what is this world coming to?

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster