"It is my body, and I can do whatever I want with it."
This is one of the most common arguments when talking to someone about this issue. At least argument is generally consistent considering that they are usually in favor of allowing suicide or assisted suicide. However, if I run my child over, can I justly say, "It is my car, and I can do whatever I want with it"? Of course not? Why? Because that is living and breathing human child, and then I will be thrown into prison for murder, vehicular manslaughter, criminal negligence, child abuse, and the list goes on and on. So why is it alright to chemically burn a fetus and then cut its limbs off and extract it? This brings me to my next point.
"A fetus is not a human life, it is only a parasite."
This is the most fun argument for me to dismantle. A fetus is a human life, and there is scientific evidence to support this. Beginning from day one, the fetus has a genetic code makeup from two different humans. You don't honestly believe that the fetus is going to come out as a tree or a plant do you? Furthermore, most people in favor of abortion are generally not supportive of Michael Vick and what he did to those dogs because dogs are esteemed as lives. So why is a fetus, human life or not, not a life and a dog is?
Are people in favor of abortion alright with a woman choosing to kill her children after they have come out of the womb? Of course not! They would call it child abuse and murder. If a fetus is a parasite inside the womb, how much more is it a parasite outside of the womb. Inside of the womb, all a woman needs to do is make sure they do not smoke, drink alcohol, and a few other things. A woman also needs to watch their vitamin intake, and make sure that they are properly nourished. Once that baby is born (funny how it is only called a baby only when it is born), life becomes a lot harder for mommy and daddy too. The baby needs breast milk (breast milk has been proven over and over to make a child smarter and have a stronger immune system than a child who was given formula), so the baby is still sapping off of the mother. Before the fetus is born, the only money that needs to be spent on the fetus is check-ups, ultrasounds, vitamins, and food. After the fetus becomes a baby, it must have diapers, clothing, toys, food, doctor's appointments, college education, an allowance, a tux or dress for the prom, and perhaps a car if the child is fortunate enough. So how is a child between the ages of 0-25 not a parasite, but a fetus is? It seems to me that if abortion is legal before birth, perhaps we should let children be aborted by their parents after they are born because it takes too much to raise them.
"It is a woman's personal health decision."
This is usually followed by someone claiming that we want to take away women's rights to vote, hold job, and various other things. This is not actually valid considering that it is a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is when someone says X is true for A, so it must be true for B, C, D, E, etc. This also has nothing to do with rights. People like myself do not view murdering your child for your own selfish benefit (I will get to rape later) to be a human right.
If a women really wants to maintain her personal health, then an abortion is the wrong thing to do. There is not a lack of research on this issue, and many studies have been done on this issue considering that abortion has been legal in our country since the 1970's. Some complications that have been directly linked to abortion of PTSD, hemorrhaging, infertility, damage to the womb, damage to the cervix, infections, and even death. Most government agencies consider abortion to be safe, but that is the problem with the government. It seems that most governments do not care about mental health. Mental health is more important than physical health is. Stephen Hawking cannot really move at all, but he is the smartest man in the world. My point is that keep the mind is tact is more important than making sure you have motor functions. If a person at least has a mind they can achieve something.
"So if a woman is raped..."
Do I even need to finish that argument? If a woman is raped, should they then be allowed to have an abortion? After all, the mother did not ask to be pregnant, nor did she do anything reckless to make a man rape her. Therefore, she should not have to have his child. I can see how this argument is a good argument, and I personally think it is a valid arguments. However, let us consistently apply the anti-death penalty argument to this. Will aborting the fetus bring justice upon the rapist? I do not think a woman should be forced to give birth to a child under circumstances of rape, but for her own sake I think it should be discouraged. As it stands now, only about 1% (320+) of rape victims that have become pregnant from rape even have abortions, so this argument is not as good as people think it is.
To hold it against the rapist for what he did by committing murder is not a good thing at all. This is something called bitterness. Sure it hurts when a woman is raped, and I can't even imagine the pain and suffering and the grieving process that happens inside the woman's mind after such a horrific even, but how much will stabbing myself hurt someone else? If I drink poison, will you die? If a woman has her fetus aborted, will it kill the rapist?
"Most aborted children are unwanted."
So they are unwanted by their parents, why is that a problem? Why not just give them to someone who wants a newborn baby? I would like to know why so many parents in our country adopt children from overseas, and not within our own borders? Perhaps the solution to abortion is to increase adoption and to make it easier to adopt a child from our own country.
Believe it or not, most abused children were actually wanted by the mother, so why are they not allowed to be aborted? It would make their lives better would it not? They would not have to suffer anymore, so would it not be a good thing? Of course it would not be a good thing to kill a child for the wrongs of the mother. To bring another point in, what about the parents who choose to get an abortion? Their reasoning is that they cannot provide the right type of life for that child, or some other reason. So why would that kind of a parent who thinks about their child be abusive? Parents who think like that seldom are abusive, so this argument has also been dismantled as a hypocritical argument as has the rest of the arguments I listed.
I hope this perspective helps everyone who reads this to stand up to the powers that be and against the greatest genocide in our country has ever seen. I would venture to say that this infanticide is on the same level as what we did to the Native Americans. We need to end this genocide as soon as humanly possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment