DeeCee, you need be reminded that sciforums.com appeals to a particular percentage of the US population. It does not represent the whole of America or for that matter, the world. If no one wants to listen, there is nothing I can do about that. Remember, these are MY opinions and you can take them or leave them. I don't profess to be the absolute authority of anything, but I believe the way I do for a reason, and there is a lot more to it than the typical sterotype of the Pro-Lifers that pro-choice enforces. On the other hand, you seem terrified of being educated by pro-lifers. Why? Do you think I'm going to crack a bible at you? I haven't so far... I've mentioned Christians as some of the biggest pro-lifers so far, but I've not spouted a bible verse and placed my arguments in seccular reasonings. Indeed, my arguments in Biology in particular are probably the only ones so far used in this debate which are scientific and can be refuted if incorrect. That is proper for SCIFORUMS.COM, isn't it?
Lucey, your perplextion over my moral difference is based entirely on the assumption of a circular and self-enforcing argument, that's why you are caught in it. Your assumption is that women who have abortions aren't enforcing there morals on those who do not, because Abortion is a choice to be made by the individual. What you are not realizing is that the "choice" is in itself a moral concept and stating that women should have the right to have an abotion if they want one, and making that the law in this country without the expressed conscent of 99.9999% of the population of this country was the imposing of that moral. It doesn't matter how you justify abortion; it was made legal without the due process of democratic rule in this country, and as it was had to fight 4 appeals in court to be legalized in the end by only ONE person, making that decision for the entire nation. On those grounds, the pro-choice movement imposed it's moral of choice on America WITHOUT the conscent of it's citizens. This is a democracy; it is not for any one person to decide the laws or for that matter the morals of this country. Unfortunetly in the case of abortion, this is exactly what happened. This is also a reason abortion is still controversial. What you aren't realizing is that all it would take would be an legal overturning of Roe vs. Wade to make abortion illigal in over half the US. Most of the states I mentioned before, ie. Texas, Newbraska, Montana, Nevada, Montana, ect. already have pro-life leaning laws on their books, and those laws currently do not operate because of Roe vs. Wade. This presents a problems for feminists in that it would take only ONE person in the right place to make abortion illigal - that is why they are still fighting to keep it legal, and it is also why pro-life supporters are also highly active. The fight for legal abortion in this country is still going on for those reasons. NOW is powerful enough for the most part to guard Roe vs. Wade from overturning, but probably cannot ever get enough support to pass any kind of Constitutional ammendment or federal law which would spell out the right to abortions.
Another thing that upsets me are states like Alaska, which now offer abortion as a public health service. EXCUSE ME, but when you take my tax money to fund the decision of another person I consider immoral, then you are essentially forcing me to support their moral decision. Thus, I have EVERY RIGHT to say where my tax money goes as a citizen and thus have every to participate in the question of wether or not she should have one, since I am paying for it.
Yes, I think abortion is wrong period, but the reason I don't impose this this moral on places like New York and Ohio is that the democratic governments of those states had legalized Abortion before Roe vs. Wade imposed it on the Mid-West and Southern states. In Brittan and most of Europe, abortion is legal but something you aren't mentioning is that abortion in those countries is HIGHLY regulated. Brittan for example, has banned partial-birth abortion as has just about all other countries Europe. All of them have set a limit in the number of weeks. In America, California has set the limit at 8 weeks. On a national level however, NOW has blocked all attempts for the US Government to regulate abortion in any way, shape, or form. This is one of the reasons abortion is still in the hot-seat.
Still, neither side has behaved well in all manors either. Abortionists love to martyer themselves as opressed because 5 or 6 abortion doctors have died in the last 20 years, but don't say anything about women left sterile or worse, DEAD by botched abortions. You have to ask yourselfs why, of all medical procedues is no data readily available of the mortality rates and complications of this practice. If you wanted heart surgery, your surgeon lines out all the risks, and the AMA or US Departnemtnf of Health can tell you statistically how many people have died from the procedure. Yet, you will find no such data is available about abortion. The only logical reason why would be that the data is not being made available by a higher authority. Abortion clinics have to be licenced; incidents of death or complications MUST be reported to higher authority as a mannor of process, so it is obvious that someone knows. Yet, these figures are apparently not researchable. That in itself is a great reason to be suspicious of the "safety" of abortion, and how much the abortion industry cares about the women it serves.
Children born from women who have substance abuse problems are exactly why many pro-lifers (hey, you're talking the same conservatives here for the most part) are so very vigilant to fight the war on drugs. It is rediculous to say they don't care; they fight to see that it doesn't happen to anyone else. In fact, a friend of mine recently had a baby and her baby has a small calcium node on his liver. This is of course, caused by the fact that she smoked pot. My pro-life friend who is the father (and didn't know about THAT detail of her lefe) has every legal ground in the world to get custody. But, he and I both care about her (the mother) and rather than destroy that girl and take her child away, we saw to it she realized what it was she did and she cleaned up. Oh, and yes I've seen children born with drug dependancies. I've held some of them as they convulsed in my arms. It tore me to bits every time, and every time I kept thinking of wanting to find the bitch who did this to their kid and themselves, and make them come and see what they did. Do I think the kid should be aborted? NO - he cannot help the way he was born anymore than I can help that I was born with a neurological disorder. So, what uptimately happens to these kids? That is an untold story. They dissappear into the state adoption programs and thus neither the pro-life or the pro-choice advocates can say what in the end is the rate of suscess of saving these children. What I can tell you is that abortion is far cheaper than caring for them.
In the cases of incest and rape, it is hader to make any kind of opinion without in some way looking cruel. The reason why is that two attrocities are commited, not one. As I pondered on this one, I never lost sight of the fact that incest and rape are less than a fraction of a percent of the number of pregnancies leading in abortion. Indeed, rape is the most overreported falsely accused crime in America. That too should be kept in mind.
In the case of incest, I find it hard to jusitfy. I keep imagining a daddy leading their little preteen girl away from Planned Parenthood, "There you see, I told you I was going to take care of everything." and then take her home to do it all over again. All abortion does in this case is remove a tell-tale sign of incestuous abuse. It removed consequences, leaving the child to be repeatedly abused and so long as no one knows about it happening inside the home, there is no way anyone can know what is going on.
In the case of rape, I have found that most women who have been raped carry their children to term, and this really makes me wonder why pro-choice people just ASSUMES they want an abortion without even asking them how they must feel about it!That doesn't seem very compassionate to me. The reasons rape was such a heinous crime historically was exactly because a woman so abused could be made pregnant. But now with abortion available, this classical reason for rape being such a heinous crime doesn't exist. Worse, it makes the matter just as trivial as the rape of men, which does happen. I know personally. But, male rape never recieved the attention that rape of women did because the consequences on men wern't nearly as severe. Now, they are about the same for men and women. That sure as heck isn't going to help stopping rape from happening anytime soon.
It is in the end, the WHOLE ISSUE, is about a lack of love, isn't it? No one is there to love the unborn child, or love the mother enough to support them to keep it. Lots of women would rather have abortions than be single moms because they stand a better chance of haing a man in their lives then. That speaks volumes of how much a man truly loves his girlfriend if he tells her he doesn't want to be a daddy too soon (or for that matter, marry her).
Maybe I'm an idealist, but love and responsibility go hand in hand. If a man sleeps with a girl but is unwilling to go so far as to marry her and have that family, it shows that the true motivation of sex for him was purely physical pleasure and release. There is no love in those actions, because the motivation was not based on any kind of concern for her. Thus, pro-choice only serves to reinforce the situations of unloved and unwanted women, abandoned children, and broken homes that it was supposedly a cure for.
Life is sacred and should be denied to no one; not man or woman, child or elderly. It is so easy to be able to care about other people and love that I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to love anyone else.
