anonymous:

Personally, I used to be pro life, but since getting older, learning more and becoming a much more mature adult, I can see the many good reasons for abortion. Catching it early, it is not a baby yet. What if you were raped or can’t afford to take care of a child? What if there is something wrong with you and the fetus could endanger your life? Or you could endanger it’s life? If I were to get pregnant now, I would abort. I believe in the importance of being pro choice.

alifelivedwell:

The timing of your message is uncanny because the way you laid out your argument fits almost perfectly with an article I read just a few days ago. It talks about how abortion activists are changing their strategy to move away from the vague term “pro-choice” and towards more specific talking points like “women’s health” and “economic security” – and the bulk of your argument is made up of those exact two talking points.

“Catching it early, it is not a baby yet.” I wonder if you consciously chose to use the term “catching it early.” That’s the term doctors use when they talk about a cancer or a disease.

“What if you were raped…” If abortion just means getting rid of a “blob” then there’s no justification needed at all. But if it’s a living baby, the fact that it was conceived in rape does not make the baby any less alive than any other unborn baby. I’m certainly not trying to belittle the suffering of any woman who has been raped – but if I’m going to stand by my belief that life begins at conception, then I don’t get to squirm away from the difficult questions by picking and choosing which unborn babies I defend. A baby conceived in rape is no less deserving of protection than the most wanted, hoped for baby in the world.

As an aside, I find it bizarre that an organisation like Planned Parenthood would even attempt to claim that they stand for victims of rape:

Planned Parenthood’s cover-up of child sex trafficking: Investigations found seven Planned Parenthood clinics in four different states were willing to aid and abet the sex-trafficking of minor girls by supplying confidential birth control, STD testing, and secret abortions to underage girls and their traffickers.

Planned Parenthood’s cover-up of sexual abuse: Investigations found eight Planned Parenthood clinics in five different states were willing to cover-up sexual abuse, disregarding mandatory suspected statutory rape reporting laws.  Clinics also provided instructions on how to circumvent parental consent laws.

Planned Parenthood Sued for Doing Abortion on Raped 13-Year-Old, Returning Her to Rapist: Throughout the visit, four staff members spoke with and observed R.Z. and her step-father. All of them had opportunity to see that R.Z.’s birth date indicated she was only thirteen—well below the age of consent. Yet, none of them asked R.Z. about their relationship. None of them asked why their last names were different. None of them asked about potential sex abuse. And none of them reported anything to the state. After the abortion, R.Z. walked back out to the parking lot, got into her step-father’s car, and went back home. And the abuse continued.

“…or can’t afford to take care of a child?” I would make two points on this:

(a) It’s estimated that there are between 1 and 2 million people waiting to adopt a child in the U.S. The number of abortions performed every year is about 1,300,000. The number of adoptions is about 58,000. For every single baby aborted, there was very likely someone waiting to adopt and take care of him or her.

(b) I find the “economic” argument extremely shaky for another reason. What if I lost my job when my child was two years old and I couldn’t afford to take care of her? Following your logic, is economic security the only justification needed for killing a child?

“What if there is something wrong with you and the fetus could endanger your life?” Here is what I wrote to someone else who asked the same question:

Abortions are never medically necessary. If a woman’s life is in danger and her baby has to be delivered early, I am not against that. But they can try to save the baby’s life too.* Now that I’ve realised that, it’s unbelievable to me how many stories I have read of doctors – people who are supposed to save lives – jumping straight to steering a woman towards abortion instead of trying to save her and her baby.

This table shows that babies born as early as 23 weeks stand a 10-35% chance of surviving. The chances of a premature baby’s survival go up rapidly from that point on.

I think that many – maybe almost all – supporters of abortion believe that people who are against abortion must value the life of the baby above that of the mother. I don’t believe that at all. To me, both lives are equally valuable and equally deserving of protection.

“Or you could endanger it’s life?” I think there must be a typo here somewhere, because you’ve just written that ending a baby’s life is the way to avoid endangering her life.

“I believe in the importance of being pro choice.” That’s a very noble-sounding statement – but (and my intention isn’t to be rude) I’m surprised that your arguments don’t have more substance given that you used to be on the other side of the debate, and you must have done a lot of thinking on the subject. You obviously disagree with me – but you didn’t attempt to refute any of the points I raised. If you were once pro-life, your definition of life must have changed for you to now support abortion.

cultureshift:

Well articulated. This is a must read for both those in favor of killing prenatal children and those in favor of protecting them.

Posted by cultureshift

A plea to win the hearts of those who choose to dehumanize our development and undermine our right to live.

Leave a Reply