Some comments to my post about Sarah Palin's speech once again brought up some of the same old questions and arguments by the pro-abortion side. My response bears posting, and the pro-life arguments bear repeating:
One comment said "I haven't researched the history of the women's rights movement and how or where abortion comes into play..."
Feminists for Life has well documented that the every single one of the early feminists -- Susan B. Anthony and all her peers -- were against abortion. And not just because it was dangerous. They called it "child-murder" and they worked to advance the recognition of the strength of women and the value of motherhood.
It was in the early '70s that two men -- one a doctor and another a zero-population guy -- convinced feminist leaders (who had previously not considered abortion the sacred cow it now is) that in order to be taken seriously by the workplace, they had to be able to unburden themselves of the trifles of pregnancy.
They made up a number of abortion deaths per year -- they said 10,000 when there were actually 119 in 1970. No one bothered to check. Seriously, if anything was killing that many women, we'd know. They came up with other incredulous arguments -- like young women wouldn't be able to finish their educations. Says who?
A Supreme Court that meant well made a tragic and lawfully unsound decision.
So, pro-abortionists continue to argue that it comes down to women controlling their lives -- can you name any other right that supersedes the right to life in any other situation? (Not self-defense -- you are protecting your own life.) The government would not be controlling anyone's life, They would be acknowledging the right of an innocent person to live, and make taking that life an illegal act.
Which then shifts the argument, what if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy?This is a miniscule fraction of the million-plus abortions every year, and pro-life obstetricians have testified that there is always a treatment that can be tried to preserve both lives. (Sadly, the baby sometimes does not survive the treatment, but at least it's given a chance.) And how does that small fraction justify the other million-plus abortions?
So then the "women will still have abortions and they will be dangerous" argument kicks in. If abortion is made illegal, it will be because the right to life of the child is recognized. Is there any other type of murder that anyone thinks should be made legal because it still happens and those who perpetrate it think it's not murder?
Are "honor killings" to be allowed since those who commit them think they are justified and they will carry them out anyway, despite any laws?
Another comment noted:
"Who's to say that every woman who has an abortion will regret it? That's between her and God."
Again, I can't think of any law where we take into consideration that the guilty conscience of the person (or absence thereof) is between them and God. Why should this be the tipping point whether or not we should allow the action in question or outlaw it?
Another observation:
"It's naive to think we can educate and convince every pregnant woman to go through with the birth, then consider alternatives to keeping the baby. In this world, that's just too utopia-thinking. Can you save a few lives? Sure. Do you solve the problem? Not a chance."
Again, just because there will still be a certain group of women who will still seek an abortion does not negate the right to life of every preborn child.
And "save a few lives"? Try at least 700,000 every year. That's a low estimate of the number of women who say that they didn't really want to have an abortion, but felt they had no other choice. Call it a utopia, but in a land where we recognize the value of every woman and preborn child, society will be forced to deal with the ills that drive women to abortion, and those 700,000 women -- and many others who will realize their own potential and the potential of their child -- will not have to experience the tragedy of abortion. (Not to mention the men involved in these pregnancies.)
None of the "promises" that the abortion advocates said would be cured by access to abortion have been realized. Child abuse and battering of women has risen exponentially. Poverty still strikes single mothers the hardest as the responsibility of parenthood still rests mainly on their shoulders. Women still face discrimination in the workplace.
Doesn't it occur to pro-abortion advocates that some of these ills still exist because of the pervasive notion that "Well, that woman 'chose' to have that baby. She made her bed now she has to lie in it." Often absolving the father, who is equally as responsible, and absolving men in general from recognizing the value of motherhood?
So maybe a world free of abortion is idealistic. But I also imagine a world without hunger, a world without homelessness, a world without so many problems. Pretty lofty goals. Does that mean we as a society should not strive for that ideal?
Comments