Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[plus]

But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

There are not very many children in the west. Hence the crisis of the aging population, with its problems such as paying for pensions.
It is not about debating the need in giving money to needy children. Most people agree that this is a good cause. But unfortunately a lot of people do not care about the right to kill the unborn as they do not see them as people.

 

[Dayle Record]

There are millions of needy children in the west. Millions of them, if you consider both the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the West. You could spend your entire lifetime income, and not make a dent in the need.

In the United States, prospective parents have to pass competency vetting, to adopt, children. Then cultural issues come into play as well. So radical anti abortion people, don't get to adopt the unwanted babies, of women, who can't afford to raise them, or who are too young, or who can't afford an abortion. The babies go to people who want to raise children, as opposed to people who have other agendas. There are some private adoptions.

It is a very real nightmare, that girls who are raped within fundamentalist families, victims of incest, have to be branded as harlots by their congregations, and watch their children be given away.

In villages all over the world, girls are given in marriage at the onset of menses. All over the fundamentalist Muslim world, girls have to pass virginity tests. In villages all over Africa, girls are circumcised with stones, and primitive blades; it is stated openly that this circumcision, is to destroy sexual pleasure for women, so they are considered clean. This is what happens when everyone but women, have rights.

 

[dekoi]

Kerrie:

that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

How about the man who recognizes that sex really isn't that big of a deal? How about the man who decides to go have sex with more woman, rape more woman, and cause them to have more abortions? How about those 80 children who are killed every single minute? How about that? Are those not other "people" who will be living with the consequences?

So you choose to ignore my arguments against ethical subjectivism? To tell you the truth, it doesn't surprise me a bit. It is a common action among ethical subjectivists to ignore logic when they are faced with a counter argument.

You say i am "the last to volunteer to help abused children or mothers on welfare. " How would you know that? Perfect example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.

"This is what happens when everyone but women, have rights." Did i ever consider not fighting for rights to woman? Did i ever suggest enslavement of freedom to women?

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!

What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another.

Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

I objected to ethical subjectivism. I objected to the "Planned Parenthood" 'reasons for abortion to be legal'; and no one really argued. Until i see a valid counterargument, i will seize to argue.

 

[Kerrie]

Of course there's another one that doesn't get to live with the consequences.

Whether or not it's your business, the issue of terminating life is certainly something the government is required to address. One point of these discussions, at least as I see it, is to work out how we think it should be addressed.

that is what Roe vs. Wade was all about. it is decided. from the roe vs. wade site:
"he Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling."

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie: How about the man who recognizes that sex really isn't that big of a deal? How about the man who decides to go have sex with more woman, rape more woman, and cause them to have more abortions? How about those 80 children who are killed every single minute? How about that? Are those not other "people" who will be living with the consequences?


I objected to ethical subjectivism. I objected to the "Planned Parenthood" 'reasons for abortion to be legal'; and no one really argued. Until i see a valid counterargument, i will seize to argue.

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

 

[cragwolf]

If the government allows people to murder the unborn, then where will it stop?

Exactly where society says it should stop, which is where it currently stops. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy.

 

[dekoi]

Exactly where society says it should stop, which is where it currently stops. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy.

He's not saying that there is a higher chance of 'x' situation happening than the current situation. He is saying there is an equal chance of further problems caused if governments continue to allow the killing of children.

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal. That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal. There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue.

I promised i will not post again, but i can not resist the senseless arguments people are posting.

 

[derekmohammed]

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal. That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal. There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue. This statement is one of the most ignorant and purhaps uninformed I have heard in a long time. If you would do a little research you would find out that before abortion was legal 15% of all maternal deaths were caused by botched illegal abortons.

See http://http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=72
Here is an example of how terrible they would become...

"In the thirties, my aunt died self-aborting. She had three children and couldn't feed a fourth … So she used a knitting needle. She died of septicaemia leaving her children motherless."

Things like this would happen quite often when abortion was illegal, is it right to put a woman in these circumstances where she is potentially at risk?

There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue.

Obviously you are missing the issue.

 

[BoulderHead]

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

You appear to be confusing fetus with newborn infants.

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal.

This statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.

…That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal.

Wrong again, you should have said; Thievery will stop if governments make it illegal. Of course you know it would be absurd to make such a claim, unfortunately you don’t seem to be aware the statement about abortion ceasing is just as ludicrous.

I promised i will not post again, but i can not resist the senseless arguments people are posting.

Nor I yours.

 

[plus]

You appear to be confusing fetus with newborn infants.
This statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Wrong again, you should have said; Thievery will stop if governments make it illegal. Of course you know it would be absurd to make such a claim, unfortunately you don’t seem to be aware the statement about abortion ceasing is just as ludicrous.
.

The main point is that abortion will decrease in quantity if it is made illegal.

I too get annoyed when people make statements like " Prostitution is going to happen anyway, so why not make it legal". The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.

 

[BoulderHead]

My point was about making untrue statements.

I don’t share your apparent view on prostitution, though it is in fact legal in more than one area and so far as I have ever seen has not become a ‘majority activity’ in such areas. Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

 

[Kerrie]

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

newborns are not being killed. this sort of statement shows how far off of reality your views truly are. roe vs wade has determined that the privacy of a woman is what ultimately matters in this issue. roe vs wade also made the determination that it was safer for a woman to have a legal abortion then for her to choose an illegal one. roe vs wade acknowledges reality that women will continue to seek abortions in a large scale.

roe vs wade did not make a judgement call in saying that abortion was morally ok. roe vs wade was a judgement call in what is inevitable-women will risk their lives because they will continue to choose. i am not even saying abortion is morally right, but it is necessary unfortunately. we can preach and preach, but i guarantee you, your preaching will not change women's minds about what they feel is right for themselves.

 

[Dayle Record]

One statistic I consider tangent to this discussion, but remarkable. According to statistics I have read in the papers, recently, the number one cause of maternal death in the United States, is HOMICIDE. There are a lot of guys that don't want to raise their offspring, to the extent that they murder both their offspring, and the women who are carrying them.

In Africa, rape is one of the main routes of transmission, for the AIDS virus. In the process of that crime, both mother and child are frequently murdered; or the mothers of existent children are taken by that act.

 

[AiA]

how could you say that the one getting an abortion is the only one being affected, what about the potential of that child. Chaos theory, one person, literally, changes the outcome of the universe. The potential of that child is so great that to even consider disallowing its ability to change the world is preposterous, and on top of that, its more the worlds problem than the mother, that child would of affected so many people, and that affect is so much greater than its affect on its mother.

 

[AiA]

Kerrie, I'm sure that you agree that child bearing is a natural thing, its normal, its HUMAN NATURE for women to give birth. Now why would going against nature be a good thing?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Kerrie, I'm sure that you agree that child bearing is a natural thing, its normal, its HUMAN NATURE for women to give birth. Now why would going against nature be a good thing?

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever heard, and I've spent 35 years listening to Catholic doctrine on the subject. It is also human nature to murder and make war. Yes it is; all the counterexamples turned out to be phoney. Besides, what you call human nature is here indistinguishable from animal nature. It is "nature's way" for mammals to bear young. That doesn't mean we have to do so. I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

 

[dekoi]

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever heard, and I've spent 35 years listening to Catholic doctrine on the subject. It is also human nature to murder and make war. Yes it is; all the counterexamples turned out to be phoney. Besides, what you call human nature is here indistinguishable from animal nature. It is "nature's way" for mammals to bear young. That doesn't mean we have to do so. I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

 

[Kerrie]

The potential of that child is so great that to even consider disallowing its ability to change the world is preposterous, and on top of that, its more the worlds problem than the mother, that child would of affected so many people, and that affect is so much greater than its affect on its mother.

a valid opinion, but again, roe vs. wade was more concerned with the immediate safety of the mother rather then the potential of the fetus. again, roe vs. wade was not a matter of morals, but a matter of safety and privacy.

 

[Kerrie]

I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

excellent point...where are the anti-abortion supporters when it comes to birth control? that is much more widespread then abortion, and many potential lives are being prevented in this manner.

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

contraception. it prevents unwanted pregnancies from having a poor quality of life because two people who are going with human nature (in other words sex) are unprepared for the immense responsibility of a child.

 

[Dissident Dan]

AiA, there are many different aspects of "human nature", and they are not all harmonious with one another. It is human nature to desire freedom, and it is, according to you, human nature to give birth, but children bring responsibilities, thereby limiting freedom. There are many more examples of the contrasts within the realm of "human nature"...more than I could ever list.

 

[russ_watters]

excellent point...where are the anti-abortion supporters when it comes to birth control? that is much more widespread then abortion, and many potential lives are being prevented in this manner.

The Catholic Church is against it, but most American Catholics disagree (and disobey) with the Church on this one. Its a real problem though for those who take the religion seriously. And many do, as you are implying, hold mutually exclusive views on the two.

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

Flying (based on AiA's criteria).

edit: AiA's statement's follow-up was (perhaps unintentionally?) broader than the "human nature" thing, and implies anything we do that chimps don't do is "unnatural." However, being against both activist environmentalism and religious fundamentalism, I would argue that everything humans do is natural, seeing as how everything we do is a function of our brain-power, which is a product of our evolution.

So my answer to the religious and "naturalist"(?) argument, "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings," is: humans were meant to fly - they have brains!

This is also the root of my objection to religious views on abortion (among other things) - the Catholic Church's views on most things scientific, including abortion, are clouded by misuse, misunderstandings, and clinging to primitive ideas - of science. edit2: And I'd even say (blasphemy!) that that's a misinterpretation of scripture as well - if God didn't mean for us to fly, why did he give us brains?

 

[arildno]

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

1) Hmm..wearing clothes?
2) Eating with knife and fork
3) Practically everything else we do.

 

[plus]

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

We all know what the law is, so stop banging on about Roe vs wade, as we all know what the result was. Society has a duty to have responsibility to the fetus just as it is responsible for providing safety to the born.
The reality is that this discussion is not completely decided by 2 rich lawyers, only the law is.
WOMEN WILL NOT ABORT IN SUCH LARGE NUMBERS IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. Nothing could be more destructive than mass murder.

 

[plus]

I don’t share your apparent view on prostitution, though it is in fact legal in more than one area and so far as I have ever seen has not become a ‘majority activity’ in such areas. Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Yes. Prostitution increases if it is legal.

 

[Kerrie]

We all know what the law is, so stop banging on about Roe vs wade, as we all know what the result was. Society has a duty to have responsibility to the fetus just as it is responsible for providing safety to the born.
The reality is that this discussion is not completely decided by 2 rich lawyers, only the law is.
WOMEN WILL NOT ABORT IN SUCH LARGE NUMBERS IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. Nothing could be more destructive than mass murder.

Roe vs Wade is what decided the law, so yes, i will "bang" on about it because fortunately it protects me from your morals-which are not ultimately the right ones (obviously). and yes, you are right the number of SAFE abortions will decrease while the number of UNSAFE abortions will increase. Roe vs. Wade protects women in this instance.

it is your OPINION that society has a due responsibility to the fetus, but it is not REALITY. what makes you think that your opinions should govern other people's privacy? what makes you think your morals are so righteous? what makes you think women will really care what you think when they are dealing with the overwhelming responsibility of raising a child, feeding a child, paying for medicine, and daycare expenses? personally, i think you are arrogant in your views and have no concept of the true reality of these women who have to make this awful choice. i don't know if you are from america, but in america, we all have the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

fortunately the law protects me and other women from your unrealistic and invasive opinions.

 

[Kerrie]

The Catholic Church is against it, but most American Catholics disagree (and disobey) with the Church on this one. Its a real problem though for those who take the religion seriously.

Russ, please read my comment again above...no where did I mention the term "Catholic", only anti-abortion supporters. My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers? If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, please read my comment again above...no where did I mention the term "Catholic", only anti-abortion supporters. My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers?

I know - I was highlighting one specific source of such conflict. ie:

If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

That is the position and logic of the Catholic Church. I think some people simply choose to draw the line at conception (yes, I am aware that not all contraception stops conception -- a whole 'nother can of worms). It may be mean, but I think on some political/religious issues, many people are content to accept a simple, if not entirely consistent opinion.

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

No, I think this is just a reflection of the demographics of this BB. But I think the connection men have is obvious: its the sperm! Also though, even if men don't have the right to take a part in the decision, the outcome of the decision includes and affects a responsibility for them. I think because of that shared responsibility for the cause and obligation in the outcome, the male should (but doesn't have to) be consulted in the decision.

 

[BoulderHead]

Yes. Prostitution increases if it is legal.

You have not addressed my question which had to do with your statement;

“The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.”

You haven’t even supported the much weaker claim now made with anything other than “yes”. I am not favorably impressed by any of this. Methinks you now commit a similar error to the one made by dekoi (whopping exaggeration) that I originally attacked and again, like dekoi, neither of you have addressed my replies. Would you care to try again?

 

[plus]

You have not addressed my question which had to do with your statement;

“The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.”

This is straying from the topic. I am not going to look up prostitution statistics on the internet, but it is true that the number of incidents does go up when legal.

 

[plus]

My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers? If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

Because the potential for life is not alive.

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

I do not feel that the foetus will be threatened. It is the children of men who are being brutally murdered by the abortionists. I would prefer to see my son grow up to be a tall strong young man, and not killed because the timing is inconvenient. I would also not like to be murdered by my mother now because she decides that I am now inconvenient.

Why are you being so sexist in this discussion?

 

[Kerrie]

Why are you being so sexist in this discussion?

i can ask you why are you being so inconsiderate of the mother's feelings? she is the one who goes through the body changes, has to bear a child (believe me it is very painful) and ultimately responsible for the child because so many men will walk away from parenthood and leave that mother a single parent. she will pursue child support, but he may not pay, he may not be involved. this isn't about YOU, this is about the woman and her ultimate burden of responsibility. sure, you might be a responsible father, unfortunately many men left women high and dry which gives a woman incentive to terminate, and she needs to be able to do it safely. now that abortion has been legal for 32 years in America, women who have had the choice will not stop getting abortions whether you feel it is wrong or not.

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body.

 

[Hurkyl]

And I could ask you how you can be so dismissive of the child. And, I could say how it isn't about YOU, but about the defenseless child and its right to live.

 

[Kerrie]

And I could ask you how you can be so dismissive of the child. And, I could say how it isn't about YOU, but about the defenseless child and its right to live.

the child has a right to life once he/she is born, and yes, i have two children of my own i love very much. you try telling this to a woman with no money, no support, 2 months pregnant and unable to provide a solid home once she was to give birth. the abortion law is not about morals of the life of a child, it's about the safety and privacy of a woman who's immediate life is considered by the eyes of the law more important then a 8 week fetus.

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body either.

It is the children of men who are being brutally murdered by the abortionists. I would prefer to see my son grow up to be a tall strong young man, and not killed because the timing is inconvenient. I would also not like to be murdered by my mother now because she decides that I am now inconvenient.

i am guessing then if you had a daughter you wouldn't feel so strongly? don't tell me about being sexist.

 

[Hurkyl]

the child has a right to life once he/she is born

Once there is agreement with this, there is no problem, and I would defend abortions right up until the moment of birth. (At least, unless some other issue pops up)

The problem? There isn't agreement with this. This is my #1 gripe with the majority of pro-choice advocates: they take your statement as an axiom, and refuse to acknowledge any disagreement on this point.

You call others dogmatic -- but you aren't any better.

you try telling this to a woman with no money, no support, 2 months pregnant and unable to provide a solid home once she was to give birth.

I will not accept an emotional argument in support of murder, period.

When a rational argument is presented that destitution is a valid excuse for murder, I'll listen.

the abortion law is not about morals of the life of a child, it's about the safety and privacy of a woman who's immediate life is considered by the eyes of the law more important then a 8 week fetus.

If it's about balancing the safety and privacy of a woman against the life of a fetus, then it most certainly is about the life of the fetus.

On privacy: if the fetus has a right to life, you have to present an argument why the mother's right of privacy is more important than the fetus's right to life.

On safety: if abortion should be illegal when safety is not considered, you have to provide an argument why an illegal act should be made legal in order to protect the safety of those committing that illegal act.

(If giving birth puts the life of the mother at risk, that's a third, separate issue)

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body either.

What views have I presented that are dogmatic? I intend this both as:

(1) a challenge for you to back up your allegation, as I suspect you are making unwarranted assumptions about my position.
(2) self-improvement, as I try to avoid making any assertions I can't back up with reason.

 

[Kerrie]

Once there is agreement with this, there is no problem, and I would defend abortions right up until the moment of birth. (At least, unless some other issue pops up)

The problem? There isn't agreement with this. This is my #1 gripe with the majority of pro-choice advocates: they take your statement as an axiom, and refuse to acknowledge any disagreement on this point.

You call others dogmatic -- but you aren't any better.

think of it this way...if a woman is telling you that circumcision is wrong for moral reasons, you have only a fraction of the feeling a woman understands when men, who have no clue what child bearing is all about, tells her to continue on with a pregnancy she is unfit to deal with.

I will not accept an emotional argument in support of murder, period. When a rational argument is presented that destitution is a valid excuse for murder, I'll listen.

your definition of murder is not consistent with the U.S. laws obviously. abortion is not considered murder in the eyes of the law.

If it's about balancing the safety and privacy of a woman against the life of a fetus, then it most certainly is about the life of the fetus.

On privacy: if the fetus has a right to life, you have to present an argument why the mother's right of privacy is more important than the fetus's right to life.

try reading the U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. it guarantees the same privacy for men and women. the term "fetus" is not anywhere in the constitutution. according to the U.S. laws, a fetus is not considered a U.S. citizen, but once it is a child born and breathing, it is considered a U.S. citizen. it is your own opinion that a fetus is a citizen with rights, but it is not consistent with the laws. if you don't like the laws, i suggest writing your congressmen or find a new country to live in.

On safety: if abortion should be illegal when safety is not considered, you have to provide an argument why an illegal act should be made legal in order to protect the safety of those committing that illegal act.

how much of roe vs. wade have you read? have you read anything i have posted these last 3 pages? abortion is only legal because of the safety and privacy of a woman, not because the U.S. laws say it's okay to terminate fetuses. it's about being practical and dealing with reality, many women were becoming severly ill and even risking their lives up until abortion was made legal in 1973. to tell a woman she should keep her baby regardless of her current position is unrealistic. would you rather see teenagers dump a newborn in the dumpster because they didn't know how to deal with it, or perhaps given her the option for abortion before that child came into the world and then die a horrible death?

let me repeat, the U.S. laws for abortion were not based on the morality of the situation...not everyone's idea of morality is consistent nor practical...the laws for abortion were made for realistic and practical reasons. you can scream, kick, yell and preach all you want how horrible it is(and i agree it is a horrible act personally), but those women stuck in a desperate situation are only thinking of what they feel is right for them. this is not my opinion, but a fact that has been proven over and over. millions of women obtain abortions each year, and since abortion has been legal, in my state NOT ONE WOMAN HAS DIED. the judicial law has the perspective of, "she's going to terminate the pregancy one way or another...if it is legal, she will be safe. and under the constitution she has a right to privacy."


my argument is backed up by the laws of the U.S. itself. yours are backed up by your own personal morals, again not always consistent and practical with the rest of the United States citizens.