I was going through some of my favorite blogs and came upon Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter's post about abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I don't know if I would have an abortion if I were to get pregnant before I wanted to. I think that those who are against abortion aren't being very realistic, and out of all the facts that these people bring up, they never ask: Wait, since I'm so against Jane Doe aborting this child, I'm going to take care of it for the rest of my life, right? Never. Not once. Yes, it's easy for me to sit back and cluck my tongue and shout "Baby Killer!" to a woman who chooses to abort. But, what if that child is born? Into an unloving home? Where the parent (s) weren't ready for a child and mistreat it? Is the child better off? I just wish people would ask themselves this before they make judgments. It's easy to say what you would or wouldn't do when you're not the one that has to make that decision.
Another thing, why are our politicians (almost all of them are men) having a say in this anyway? Once again, who in the hell has to push out this child? Whose body is at risk when it spews forth another human being? The politicians? Nah. The woman who has to look herself in the mirror everyday with the fact that she did or didn't abort her child. I know this is a very controversial topic, but I stand firm: Let the mother decide. Case and point.
Just trying to make it through the summer....
About Me
The support (and sometimes headache) of my life
Workaholic
Saving the day one cause at a time...
Twin
I swear..it's uncanny the way this woman works.
3 comments:
I agree with what you've said completely. Especially about the politicians. And if a woman is so messed up she can't take care of herself, how can she take care of a baby she was never expecting in the first place?
Hi College Chronicler,
I'm not sure your logic regarding whether prolifers are willing to adopt children works. How can whether one will adopt a child prove their position is right or wrong? I don't think it can.
Look at this another way, what if someone who was in favor of legalizing spousal abuse said to you something like this,
"I think you're not being very realistic, and out of all the facts you bring up, you never ask: Wait, since I'm so against John Doe beating his wife, I'm going to marry Jane Doe and take care of her the rest of my life, right? Never. Not once."
It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Whether something is wrong or right is not dependent on whether the individual holding a position will do this or that. That's an ad hominem attack which attacks the arguer instead of the argument.
You ask if the child is better off in unloving home or dead. The obvious answer is the child is better off in an unloving home. If you disagree, then do think children in unloving homes should be killed?
BK-- Thanks, good point.
JJ-- I understand your point and it makes sense. But remember the last time a baby was thrown away or a child ended up dead (and the family was responsible). These kids weren't killed by loving parents. It was quite the opposite. My point on the politicians adopting the children so that they won't be aborted was simply to point out that every case is unique. I don't agree with politicians lumping all of the cases together and declaring it unjustified. Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment