Some pro-abortionists have accused the anti-abortionists of hypocrisy. They contemptuously claim that you can’t be against abortion but for the death penalty. In order for this argument to work, it would require that they recognize the fetus as a person or that the criminal stopped being a person at some time. This is like comparing apples to oranges.
That human being in the womb is totally innocent of any crime. No one who is for the death penalty wants an innocent person to suffer the death penalty. Therefore, to be for both is completely consistent. If someone wants to make a comparison then we can only say that when the mother decides to seek an abortion, we have given her the right to be judge, jury, and executioner and has sentenced that innocent person to die. There is your comparison.
There are areas where both sides are in agreement though. Pro-abortionists will agree that abortion should not be an option for the purposes of population control, gender preferences or as a substitute for contraceptives. Anti-abortionists would allow for an abortion in the case of a rape, an incestuous relationship or if there is an imminent threat to the life of the mother.
If we look at this particular argument closely, we can see a couple of things. First, it makes both sides hypocritical. Pro-abortionists must declare that the fetus deserves to live if the reason is one of these, therefore a person, although their primary argument is that it is not a person. Anti-abortionists must declare that the human being within the womb is not deserving of the right to life, thus under the circumstances is not a person although their whole argument is that it is a person. Which is it?
Why are the reasons cited any less valid for the mother to choose as any other reason she might have to abort that human being within her? In fact, abortion by its very nature is the act of population control. We are a nation that has a population of about 60 or 70 million persons less than we would be if abortion were illegal. How can we say that we are not using abortion as a means to control the population of this nation?
Every abortion is an act of substitution for a contraceptive. Show me a pregnancy that didn’t occur as a direct result of not using a contraceptive or if one was used, failed. Therefore, while the thought of these reasons may not be in anyone’s mind, the reason for having one and the end result of an abortion is still the same.
As for gender preference, an abortion is an abortion regardless of gender. If the whole idea behind the cause is the idea of a planned family, on what basis can we deny the idea of this planned family be founded on gender. Some people prefer to raise boys, others prefer to raise girls. It takes away from the whole idea that abortion is a woman’s choice.
The last few days I have attempted to cover many of the reasons used in relation to the issue of abortion. I know that I have probably addressed only a few of the arguments that need to be addressed if one was to address the issue completely. As I sit here typing I can come up with a couple more idea that need to be addressed.
I also know that I have not convinced anyone to change his mind on the issue. The most I can hope for is that I might have given my readers enough fodder that they realize the need to think a little deeper into their thoughts on this issue and that includes persons on both sides of the issue. We need to realize that there is more to think about in this issue than how it affects the mother or that human being within her.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Griper, I've enjoyed reading your essays on this topic. I agree with you that they're not likely to change anyone's mind. But in 2008 we had our first national election since 1972 where abortion didn't come up as a major topic. Perhaps we are reaching a time when we can talk about it in a reasonable way.
that would be a nice thought, gordon, a very nice thought. though in a back handed way it was a big issue. it was addressed when talk was about the appointment of new judges for the Supreme Court.
though i will say that the states have been making some headway in regaining authority on this issue.
as long as this nation is as divided as it is on the issue it will remain a huge political problem.
great blog my friend keep it going.
And stop in to say hello at mine..I kind of think you will like it.
Regards..
I agree with you and have enjoyed reading your posts.
www.freedoms-fight.blogspot.com
he chuckles, well i hope you agree with me, pistolmom. i'd hate to see you disagree and i'd get a pistol whippin from ya. :)
welcome to my little corner of the cyber world.
Hi, Griper. I haven't read all your essays on this subject because as you know, I've been without a computer for nearly a month and I honestly don't have time to read them all now... besides, I have a feeling they are going to make my head hurt! LOL!
At any rate, one of the statements you made in this post is "Anti-abortionists would allow for an abortion in the case of a rape, an incestuous relationship or if there is an imminent threat to the life of the mother." With exceptions, of course. I know several anti-abortionists on the internet who would not go along with abortion under any circumstances whatsoever. Personally, I would choose the life of the mother over the life of an unborn child if the choice had to be made. I'm unsure about incest even though I know that it can cause birth defects. Still, is it a mandate that all human beings must be perfect? That one causes me conflicting emotions. "Emotions" cause me conflicting emotions! LOL! Regarding rape, I'm against abortion in the case of rape. What the rapist has done is not the child's fault. Neither is it the mother's fault but unfortunately she's the one who has to carry it for 9 months, but who's to say that child might not grow up to be another Einstein? I feel if the mother could not bear the thought of raising the child of a rapist, then she can adopt it out. How would I feel if I had to give birth to a baby caused by rape? When I was younger I would have been furious and I think I would have aborted it if given the chance. That's honest. Now that I'm older I think that choice would be wrong. I think that the baby would be something good that resulted from a horrible situation, but that's just me. If I were raped and if I could still become pregnant (which I can't except through divine intervention)- and although I have no desire to raise another child, I would give birth to the baby and raise it. Now this may seem that it is an easy thing to say since it's a physical impossibility, but it's something I've thought long and hard about and feel in my soul that it is what I would do, even though we have the present administration who is at work messing up our retirement investments and it would probably have to eat a lot of beans and corn bread.
See what happens when I'm away from the pc for a month! :)
Blessings and hugs!
What a lot of people do not realize about Abortion and Rape is that Abortion can be a whether Invasive Operation and can actually cause Traumatic Memories of the Rape. Abortion is NOT AN ERASER and will not remove the trauma of the rape and more importantly, it may even add to it.
Sometimes what seems to be the most fair and humane treatment to ease the pain of a victim is not the most fair and humane treatment. Things are just not always as they seem.
Though it seems quite unfair to expect a victim to have to carry something for nine months when it is not her fault that it exists, believe it or not, the nine month pregnancy can sometimes be Therapeutic because it allows the victim to feel good about oneself, whether than bad about oneself and therefore, can help, at least in part, to RESTORE THE DIGNITY that has been taken from her.
Some Rape Victims actually have an emotional need to carry the baby to term simply because it proves to others and to oneself that she IS NOT like the one who violated her. Instead she is a decent and loving human being. This can be Incredibly Therapeutic.
What is really tragic indeed is when a rape victim, who has an emotional need to carry the baby to term is pressured by some other loved one who is having trouble dealing with the rape into an abortion that she does not want. In these situations, the Invasive Procedure that she was pressured into can be NO LESS TRAUMATIC than being raped a second time.
In these cases, the "loved ones" think they are doing the girl a favor, but all they have really done is pressured something that benefits themselves and not the rape victim.
Incest is another case in which carrying to term is often more beneficial and therapeutic than we have been lead to think. Too often, Abortion is used to cover up crime and the abuse is never reported. After the Abortion is preformed, the girl is returned to her abusive environment and far too often, additional Abortions are preformed repetitively with no help given to free the victim of her abuse.
What is better is when the girl is removed from the abusive situation and given an alternate place to stay for nine months while she carries to term.
I can not say this enough times. THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY SEEM. and what is hurtful or beneficial and therapeutic is not always what initially may seem to be so.
Oh, and about the case in which the life of the mother is threatened, self-defense is not considered murder. This is an unfortunate exception to the Anti-Abortion stand, and I believe that it is the only one that is valid.
There not much to add that hasn't been said already.
Great job my friend
lista,
given the work you do i will not argue your points and may even agree with them in some cases as you said.
gayle,
good to see you back online. you've been missed by your fans.
Yeh,
You know, I consider myself a Moderate in a lot of the issues, but I guess this isn't one of them.
most of us are like that, lista. imo, it all depends on how zealous you are in regards to an issue that determines your place on the spectrum of politics. i also believe that the amount of knowledge we have on any given issue may play a big part to that zeal. and your work with the girls gives you added knowledge in this area.
You are right, Griper, about the knowledge because I was closer to the middle in my stand on Abortion until I read the literature relating to the comment that I made above and realized that even what is usually considered exceptions in this case does not hold up when you have all the facts. The information really surprised me, Griper.
I do not agree with what you say about being zealous, though, because I can be quite zealous about some of my positions that are more Moderate, in which I am very strongly opposed to both of the Extremes.
"I do not agree with what you say about being zealous,..."
ok, i can see how what i said could be interpreted as you did.
but, isn't your zeal in regards to those issues the reason why you are strongly opposed to those extremes therefore placing you in the middle?
isn't zeal only the recognition of very strong feelings in regards to an issue?
i may be wrong but i've never pictured zeal as being solely at the extremities of the spectrum. to me, zealousy could be anywhere along the line and only required that one be very firmly set in that position.
No Griper,
Zeal has nothing to do with it. Too often, Zeal has to do with Emotion and we should not base our decisions about what is and is not true on Emotions. What I find to be true about Zealous people is that they tend to embrace the Extremes. You may not think so, but what I've observed is that they do and the people in the middle are less Emotional.
Maybe Zeal is not the word I should have used to describe my Strong Convictions against the Extremes.
The way I see it is that if the people on one side are full of Emotion and Zeal and the people on the opposite side are also full of Emotion and Zeal, than there is a reason for the Emotion on both sides and in order to best serve the needs that are causing the Emotions on both sides, it is necessary to find some kind of a Compromise.
For the most part, we should base our opinions on Facts, not Emotions. I try to only take an idea as far as the Facts lead me and not allow my Emotions to push me further over to one Extreme or the other.
We are getting off subject again, though, which we so often do.
he just nods. i understand your position. that is the main thing.
your primary gripe against the extremes is that, in your opinion, it is a position that doesn't allow for a compromised solution to an issue. and you acknowledge that your stance on abortion is an issue where you are an extremist.
from this we can declare that there are some issues that even you must admit doesn't allow for compromise.
as for getting off the topic, i guess we are in a sense but it is a topic where we are both in agreement on too. if we remained on topic we'd have nothing more to say to each other. :)
Actually, our full agreement on the issue of Abortion may not be settled as much as you think. It's too bad that I'm out of time, but I will be back to explain to you how sometimes my personal opinion on something and my political position can be two separate things and also how sometimes what I might say to an individual and what I might say to a politician might be two different things.
the fact that your personal opinion may differ from your political position is irrelevant, lista. in the discussion of an issue we can only respond to what the other person says. and based upon what you have already said you must agree that we hold the same position on this issue.
The fact that my personal opinion differs from what I might say politically is relevant to a subject that we have indeed been discussing in the above comments, which is Compromise.
Just four comments up on 3/6/09, at 5:20 PM, as I was talking about Zeal, I said that "There is a reason for the Emotion on both sides and in order to best serve the needs that are causing the Emotions on both sides, it is necessary to find some kind of a Compromise. Even on a personal level, "I try to only take an idea as far as the Facts lead me and not allow my Emotions to push me further over to one Extreme or the other."
What I really want to say now, though, is that on a political level, I may Compromise beyond what I would ever consider on a personal level and also beyond what I would ever say to any individual who has the need to make a personal decision on the matter.
My last comment above has every relevance to the idea of Abortion and whether or not I would ever Compromise my position. I'm guessing that we hold the same position, on a personal level, on most issues, Griper, but our political positions on these same issues differ.
I look forward to a time in which I can take the time to more fully explain myself.
Gayle,
As I was reading your comment again just now, I couldn't help thinking that it continues to seem odd to me that people continue to talk as if Abortion and Raising the Child are the only two options. Adoption is too rarely mentioned and when we mention that Abortion is wrong, too often the girls feel strangely obligated to keep and raise the child. Adoption has gotten such a bad rap and it is really too bad.
In the case of Rape, especially when the victim is married, there is more than finances that needs to be considered. The husband may have trouble dealing with the Rape and this is not a little thing that should be ignored in this decision.
Griper,
As I have given some thought on the matter, I realize that I am still politically a Moderate and in the area of morality, the main reason is because as Christians, even though we do know we are right, it is not a good thing to come across as too pushy.
There are Christians who are overly Zealous in relation to Evangelism and end up turning people off, rather than bringing them to the Lord. Politics is the same way. When the Zeal is over done, it does not create converts. This is why I try really hard to set Zeal aside ("Strong Feelings") and focus on reason.
I have so much to say, Griper, and so little time, so I'm going to submit this in smaller chunks. Perhaps I'll be back again later today.
Post a Comment