Our First Entry
Question:
Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to
achieve in America and why do you think so?
My Opinion:
Abortion has long been a subject of controversy and while it is good to believe in the value of life, it is not right to force opinions upon others.
Circumstances and reasons to get an abortion are not the same in every situation. This is 2004 and unfortunate things happen. America is not a safe haven where women can walk down a dark road without fear. Medical complications exist and forcing a woman to die, especially if she is already a mother, so a child can be born is nonsensical. Family members aren't always the kind, caring individuals they are supposed to be and take advantage of a child's innocence. Young girls make wrong decisions because of what they think is love. Some families just don't have the resources to take on another child. The number of homeless families and children in foster care is steadily rising and ending abortion would force so many more children into that life. The number of families surviving off of welfare is ridiculously high and would only get higher. Child abuse is out of control.
If someone does not want to have a child but has no other option, they will turn to the "back alley abortion" method or wait until the child is born and terminate it's life then. Abortion should be an option. Moderate it, make it hard for someone to have multiple abortions, that's fine, but don't make it impossible to get altogether. Not everyone has to like it, but they shouldn't get to take that right away from anyone else because of their beliefs. I'm not saying that abortion is right, I'm just saying that it should be included in everyone's rights. This is America. Land of the free. Free to make your own choices. Free to live your life the way you want. We should keep it that way.
-noodge
posted by Craig R. Harmon at 3:53 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thank you, Noodge, for your contribution. Just as a reminder to commenters: Noodge has undoubtedly made comments with which you disagree. Please use your comments to discuss those disagreements. However, the rules concerning profanity and personal attack apply to Comments as well as to posts.
Don't make me edit or remove your comments because you failed to heed the rules. I will, if I must.
I, myself, have some comments.
"...it is good to believe in the value of life, it is not right to force opinions upon others."
As a statement within the context of abortion, where not all agree upon when life to which basic human rights spelled out in the Constitution, namely, "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" begins, I suppose we can agree to disagree here. As a matter of practical Constitutional Law, as opposed to any theory of the same, my belief that Constitutionally protected life ought to be considered to begin at conception, a belief based in part, but not wholly, upon Biblical principle, is something that, in a secular, pluralistic society, I have no right to foist upon others who disagree--IF I try to do so based upon Biblical principles. If, on the other hand, I or a advocate can successfully argue before a pannel of US Supreme Court Judges from scientific and legal principles that human life begins at conception and therefore, Constitutional protections ought to apply to said life, then I can not agree.
What every American must acknowledge, it would seem, is that "all men have been endowed by their Creator with un(or is it in)alienable rights", the principle of which is "life". Defining which lives are deserving of those rights, based upon principles unrelated to individual faith, is not forcing opinions upon others; it is acknowledging what has come to be accepted as true by specialists.
It is this latter, I believe, that Right-to-Life activists are looking to accomplish, not the former.
I completely disagree with your position. You say abortion should remain an option. I think that a woman never has a right to kill her own child. You are right, the world is a dark place. Put the child up for adoption! Give the child a right to life! Don't kill the child...
*May I point out that while I am not in the least knowledgeable about the subject, I think that in the case where the mother's life is endangered by giving birth, exceptions could be made.
You say, "This is America. Land of the Free. Free to make your own choices." This is not entirely true. I am not free to drive 90 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour zone--I'll get one enormous speeding ticket if I get caught. I'm not free to discriminate against someone with a disability when I'm hiring employees. My freedoms end when they infringe on someone else's rights.
In the case of abortion, the right of a woman to her own body infringes on her unborn baby's right to live. Women ARE free to say no to sex, however. Less than one percent of abortions are performed because the pregnancy was the result of rape. So over a million babies every year die because their mothers had sex of their own free will.
Deciding to abort is a complex decision, but the often touted examples of life-of-the-mother and rape are extremely rare. In the case of the life of the mother, an argument for abortion as self-defense makes sense. In the case of rape, two wrongs don't make a right.
~Ellen
To Noodge:
Just to clarify my understanding of your position, are you saying that abortion is okay as long as the fetus's only chance of survival depends upon the willingness of his or her mother to protect it?
Sorry to have misunderstood and mischaracterized your position. I can be pretty dense somethimes.
Post a Comment
<< Home