This article is completely flawed. The idea that this argument dismisses the pro-life argument relating to "takes abortion out of the arena of serious moral and ethical consideration" is just false, and not true.
For example, these are all serious moral and ethical considerations to why abortion should be a private choice:
Giving birth is dangerous.
It's bad for your health, it on average lowers your lifespan by 4% per child (there are outliers after all, and that is NOT including women who die in childbirth).
It's financially taxing, if every single women were to have a child the economy would be destroyed. It's not just raising the child, Actually just giving birth now costs the same as buying a car.
They also listened to the argument that giving birth to a child that you can't or don't want to take care of is bad for the child.
Unwanted children are statistically doomed. Adopted children have a 60% chance of being abjectly worse off than non-adopted children.
They go to jail more often.
They die younger.
They use drugs more.
They tend to be more abusive.
The argument that children can find loving homes by way of adoption was also heard, and was soundly countered by the fact that many children, event infants, never get adopted. And they don't get adopted for good reasons either (they adopt for tax points and kids often get neglected/abused).
If the child has spent any amount of time in the Child Services system, they are mentally damaged and most likely have behavioral or emotional problems.
The reason that adopting from other nations is so popular is it's actually less regulated than adopting from the U.S.A. Simply put, having a child can be a matter of life or death for a woman, which have already experienced life and have connections, while the UNBORN child does not, so it is legally permissible to have an abortion. If you don't think it is morally OK, then don't have an abortion, SIMPLE AS THAT.
The point that abortion should be illegal forces women sets a dangerous precedent to women having less control over there bodies. Forcing them to give birth when they don't want to is simply dangerous, ruins lives and is financially taxing. It makes me sick to my stomach that the person who wrote this article is in the medical field and still chooses to support pro-life views despite the overwhelming moral, ethical and medical positives of abortion vs forcing women to give birth. The person who wrote the article makes a mockery of our U.S medical system.
Yes, do tell me more about how we've misunderstood the pro-lifer viewpoint when you can't even wrap your head around the idea it's none of your business.
The key thing you need to understand is this: Someone else's choice to murder their UNBORN child isn't of your concern if you have no personal investment in the child. You don't. You won't. You can't. Period. That's where that conversation goes.
Next up, if you are so "pro-life" go help some living kids get out of danger.
Abortion is personal. It should be framed as personal. The reason being that it is tightly wound around religion and beliefs about when higher cognitive functioning begins, which science has established isn't in the first trimester. So it comes down to when the soul enters, if there is a soul and AGAIN religious. It's not a human rights issue because it isn't a functioning human yet. It's a group of cellular tissue beginning to form a human that couldn't survive without another human.
Medical and reproductive health experts say the reference to a heartbeat is medically inaccurate as an embryo does not have a developed heart at six weeks’ gestation.
15000 children die every day, globally, if only we had so many people worried about these fully formed humans who can experience loss, hunger, pain. There are 25 million unsafe abortions every year, and NOT in this country but in countries who HAVE banned abortion. Now the focus isn't only NOT on children who are struggling but on women who will be dying. Again, fully grown humans who can experience pain, loss and suffering.
There are about half a million kids in foster care each year. Only 40% of this kids are white. This is an entitlement issue.
There's a reason this argument is always a blog or a single author article, your article is just another opinion, and that's the FLAW IN THIS ARTICLE. Everyone should have the right to make their own.
I agree with 'Guest' below; I think there's an (only slightly) more compelling interpretation of "Don't like abortion? Don't have one" on which it means something like "Just because you think abortion is morally wrong doesn't mean you should try to pass laws against it or shame other people for doing it." I usually respond by saying something along the lines of: "I agree with you--just the fact that I think something is morally wrong doesn't mean that I should try to tell other people not to do it, or to pass laws against it. For instance, I think it's wrong to get drunk. But I don't think it should be illegal, and when my friends choose to get drunk I don't jump in and give them a sermon about why they shouldn't--I tend to think that that's none of my business. What you have to understand, though, is that pro-life people don't just think abortion is wrong, they think it's an act of violence against an innocent person--the fetus. Given that I think abortion wrongfully kills an innocent person, it would be morally repugnant of me not to want it to be illegal."
Just playing devil’s advocate - what if they compared abortion to things like divorce, lying, breaking a promise, premarital or extramarital sex, skipping mass, drinking alcohol, etc. - things that certainly can have serious moral implications depending on one’s religious or personal values but generally shouldn’t be illegal? What would be the best way to distinguish abortion from these other things?
I think that's a good question. I would say those are things many may disagree with on a moral level. Still, the suggested response is usually some form of persuasion or discouragement, not making those activities illegal. Now, what if we were to speak of some form of violence against an innocent person? Let's take domestic abuse or murdering an innocent person as examples. Most would think we ought to, as a civilized society, go beyond mere discouragement and make those activities illegal. Which category is abortion the closest to? If pro-lifers are right that abortion is an act of violence against an innocent person, then it is closest to the second category. In some circles, you may also hear of the distinction between moral and justice issues, the latter translating into law and including violence against innocent people. As a note, above, I assume bodily autonomy arguments do not justify abortion remaining legal. If they did justify it, then abortion might be more like those activities that many find immoral but do not legislate. I am still thinking through how that plays into this, but I would currently sum it up as the following: the difference between the first category and the second is violence against an innocent person, and the second can be translated into law so long as there is not a justifiable argument against it.
Yeah, I agree. The important part is to emphasize that it’s a form of violence against an innocent human versus being merely “immoral” (as many things fall into the latter category).
For example, these are all serious moral and ethical considerations to why abortion should be a private choice:
- Giving birth is dangerous.
- It's bad for your health, it on average lowers your lifespan by 4% per child (there are outliers after all, and that is NOT including women who die in childbirth).
- It's financially taxing, if every single women were to have a child the economy would be destroyed. It's not just raising the child, Actually just giving birth now costs the same as buying a car.
- They also listened to the argument that giving birth to a child that you can't or don't want to take care of is bad for the child.
- Unwanted children are statistically doomed. Adopted children have a 60% chance of being abjectly worse off than non-adopted children.
- They go to jail more often.
- They die younger.
- They use drugs more.
- They tend to be more abusive.
The argument that children can find loving homes by way of adoption was also heard, and was soundly countered by the fact that many children, event infants, never get adopted. And they don't get adopted for good reasons either (they adopt for tax points and kids often get neglected/abused).If the child has spent any amount of time in the Child Services system, they are mentally damaged and most likely have behavioral or emotional problems.
The reason that adopting from other nations is so popular is it's actually less regulated than adopting from the U.S.A. Simply put, having a child can be a matter of life or death for a woman, which have already experienced life and have connections, while the UNBORN child does not, so it is legally permissible to have an abortion. If you don't think it is morally OK, then don't have an abortion, SIMPLE AS THAT.
The point that abortion should be illegal forces women sets a dangerous precedent to women having less control over there bodies. Forcing them to give birth when they don't want to is simply dangerous, ruins lives and is financially taxing. It makes me sick to my stomach that the person who wrote this article is in the medical field and still chooses to support pro-life views despite the overwhelming moral, ethical and medical positives of abortion vs forcing women to give birth. The person who wrote the article makes a mockery of our U.S medical system.
The key thing you need to understand is this: Someone else's choice to murder their UNBORN child isn't of your concern if you have no personal investment in the child.
You don't. You won't. You can't. Period. That's where that conversation goes.
Next up, if you are so "pro-life" go help some living kids get out of danger.
Medical and reproductive health experts say the reference to a heartbeat is medically inaccurate as an embryo does not have a developed heart at six weeks’ gestation.
15000 children die every day, globally, if only we had so many people worried about these fully formed humans who can experience loss, hunger, pain. There are 25 million unsafe abortions every year, and NOT in this country but in countries who HAVE banned abortion. Now the focus isn't only NOT on children who are struggling but on women who will be dying. Again, fully grown humans who can experience pain, loss and suffering.
There are about half a million kids in foster care each year. Only 40% of this kids are white. This is an entitlement issue.
There's a reason this argument is always a blog or a single author article, your article is just another opinion, and that's the FLAW IN THIS ARTICLE. Everyone should have the right to make their own.
I usually respond by saying something along the lines of: "I agree with you--just the fact that I think something is morally wrong doesn't mean that I should try to tell other people not to do it, or to pass laws against it. For instance, I think it's wrong to get drunk. But I don't think it should be illegal, and when my friends choose to get drunk I don't jump in and give them a sermon about why they shouldn't--I tend to think that that's none of my business. What you have to understand, though, is that pro-life people don't just think abortion is wrong, they think it's an act of violence against an innocent person--the fetus. Given that I think abortion wrongfully kills an innocent person, it would be morally repugnant of me not to want it to be illegal."
In some circles, you may also hear of the distinction between moral and justice issues, the latter translating into law and including violence against innocent people.
As a note, above, I assume bodily autonomy arguments do not justify abortion remaining legal. If they did justify it, then abortion might be more like those activities that many find immoral but do not legislate. I am still thinking through how that plays into this, but I would currently sum it up as the following: the difference between the first category and the second is violence against an innocent person, and the second can be translated into law so long as there is not a justifiable argument against it.