I find many arguments, both for and against abortion, to be absolutely absurd.
Amen! You would not believe how many ridiculously terrible parents I come across in my line of work. These kids don't stand a chance at having a happy/healthy life. I work in the social service field and Its really frustrating.
This is VERY questionable.
There are two results:
* A child lives to grow up with crappy parents.
* The child doesn't even get a chance to grow up at all.
I had someone use this argument before, and she acted like abortions are doing these children a favor. Please, to suggest preventing one from living is doing someone a favor is a load of horse crap.
The point I wanted to add to this topic is that the rights of the mother take precedent over the rights of a fetus.
Just as the rights of the mother take precedent over the rights of her children at any phase of their life? This is what we're currently debating, should the mother's rights take precedent over a fetus?
Even the constitution seems to back this up by guaranteeing everyone the right to pursue happiness etc As Long As you are not impinging upon the rights of others.
I want to get back to this one after the next quote.
Being a parasitic growth inside someone else's body certainly impinges on their freedom.
You're saying it's okay to kill a fetus because it infringing on one's right to be happy. However, this can be said for almost anything. When the child is born, should the mother still be allowed to kill her child for being a financial drain?
You're saying that the mother has a right to pursue happiness, but does the child not have a right to life? You said that the right of the mother precedes the right of the fetus, but, I'll say it again, that's what's being debated.
Secondly, with regard to the life of the mother and the mother's safety, consider this: The time in a woman's life when she is most likely to be beaten, *****, and murdered is when she is pregnant. And those at greatest risk are low-income, less-educated, unemployed, teenage women. And, Women who are already in abusive relationships are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies, therefore they are more likely to be those dangerous situations. Therefore, the rights of the woman to protect herself come before the rights of the (not even real yet) potential person.
I believe it's wrong to use the argument that "someone else might do harm if this is allowed." That's like saying mini-skirts should be banned because a woman might encourage a man to **** her (questionable), or that drawing a bomb on a prohpet's head might lead to death threads (confirmed).
You're suggesting that abortion should be legal because pregnant women might be abused. But that's like banning guns and baseball bats because they might be used as weapons. If a woman is subject to abuse when she's pregnant, then we must do what we can to protect women who are in said situations. Obviously the people abusing these women are already performing illegal, criminal, actions. But we can still find other ways, such as educating women how to avoid and escape abusive relationships.
My point here is that, I don't find the whole "A might lead to B, therefore ban A" to be a good argument. If you believe a fetus does not hold the same value as an actual person, then what you said is appropriate. But if you honestly believe a fetus should be considered a human being, what you said means nothing." To a person who believes a fetus to be a human being, you're essentially saying a woman should be allowed to kill her child because the child leavers the mother vulnerable.
If she carries this child to term, she not only bears the medical and physical risks associated with pregnacy, she will then be legally tied to this man for the next 18+ years.
If the woman was forced to have sex, then she was *****. If the woman was too afraid to say no, then she should call the cops for physical abuse and get a restraining order. Either way, the sex was non-consensual, and therefore, is a good argument as to when abortions are appropriate.
--
Now, I'm very critical of opinions on both sides because, honestly, each argument is ignores the one area of disagreement.*
If you believe a fetus is holds less value than a human being, then obviously it will be acceptable to abort a child for a number of given reasons - such as the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, a woman's right to abort for her own protection, or to prevent children from growing up in horrible living conditions.
*
If you believe a fetus holds as much value as a human being, then you will find it unacceptable to kill said head for almost any number of reasons - such as killing the child so the mother can be "happy" and avoiding responsibility for her own actions, or killing a child because the mother might be vulnerable and ignorant of how to escape such situations where she is left as such, or killing a child because the child might be unhappy later in life.
All the arguments used on both sides are just completely useless towards people who value the fetus differently.
Personally, I am pro-life. However, I am pro-choice at a political level. The
only reason I believe abortion should be legal is because the point in which you decide an unborn child is equal to a person is
purely subjective. It's such a gray area within society that I believe the case is "unconfirmed", and may possibly never be confirmed. When something such as abortion is unconfirmed, then I believe the law should lean in favor over freedom.
However, I can fully understand why someone would consider a fetus a human being, and it makes perfect sense as to why they would find it wrong to kill such. Freedom generally ends when it begins to encroach on another person's freedoms (which is very debatable). If you honestly believe abortion is murder, then it would be right to fight to protect said life. [I don't know if this makes me a hypocrite, wrong, or pathetic. I am pro-life personally, but I do not fight to protect the unborn child. Should I? I don't know. I guess I'm too ignorant, or maybe I just believe more people should share my views before they're enforced. I don't know.]
