Adventures in Homeschooling in Southern Indiana

Friday, November 14, 2008

Also, one last question...

As a society, do we support Abortion because we genuinely believe that it's the best option for women with an unwanted baby?

Or do we support it because it's easier for US to get rid of the "inconvenience" rather than giving these women the support they would need to give birth to the child AND continue pursuing their dreams?

After all, an abortion (paid for by the woman, from her own savings) is MUCH cheaper than a baby (who would need to be born (on govt. insurance, probably), have a place to live (TANF), eat food (WIC and foodstamps.)

Honestly, America, Women DESERVE better.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe we believe a woman is in the best position to choose what the right course is for her, rather than having society dictate what she must do.

Maybe we believe that the back alley abortions that take the lives of women are not worth banning abortion.

What women deserve is to be equal with men if they so choose (not all women do). Requiring women to have children they do not want or cannot afford does not make women equal. How can you possibly believe that it is better for a young woman to give up her chance at education and/or a career to have a child, especially in cases when she herself is still a child? Why is the right of an unborn child so much more important to you than the rights of the woman? Is it because you blame her for being pregnant in the first place? If so, that is a different issue.

Dal Jeanis said...

Deidre -

That is actually the fiscal conservative argument for abortion - that if the society has to pay, then it's cheaper to kill the fetus than to rear it.

There's also a feminist argument against abortion, that was made (IIRC) by Susan B Anthony - easy abortion gives men an option to abandon women rather than support them, further victimizing the women. Anthony's faction lost against the other one, which saw abortion as a pro-career option.

Now, anonymous makes a couple of interesting points, which I'll take one paragraph at a time.

1A) Sure, the woman can choose her own course, if we assume it's only the woman involved. But if society pays for abortions, but not for birth-healthcare and childcare, isn't society pushing for one particular "choice"?

1B) Society feels just fine about dictating that the woman can't eviscerate her children when they're a month old. What is biologically different about the child at 1 month after birth than 1 month before? What is biologically different about a one-month premature fetus and a one-month premature baby?

1C) Society has a well-defined rule allowing an individual to kill in self-defense. But it also has rules requiring the application of the least force necessary to save yourself. The right to protect the mother's health is not equal to a right to a dead fetus.

2) Interesting historical fact: "Safe and Legal" abortions killed more women the year after Roe V Wade than "back alley" abortions killed the year before.

All surgical procedures have statistical risks; the more often you perform them, the more people are injured.

This is not an argument for or against the legality of abortion, just an interesting factoid about unintended side effects.

3A) If you are arguing "equality", then do you agree that jsutt like no woman, no man "should have to have a child he does not want and cannot afford"?

And if so, how would that work?

3B) Assuming you did NOT give the man the right to order an abortion, why would the woman automatically be allowed to make a choice later than the man, if they are legally "equal"?

If they are allowed equal chance to make a choice, when is that?

3C) The opposition to abortion flows, not from "desire to control women's bodies" or "desire to punish sin", but from desire to protect the innocent, and from the social belief that a fetus is equivalent to a baby.

I've never met a pregnant woman who patted her tummy and referred to the "fetus" inside her. Have you?

So the belief that a fetus IS a baby is understandable, even if it isn't considered to be legally true under current law.

3D)When you get to hard cases, rape and incest, most pro-life people waver in their standards. I mean, our legal system does not generally allow you to kill people based upon who their parents were, but in these hard cases, that is permitted by typical pro-lifers.

This is an acknowledgement that we do not live in a perfect world, and some cruelties may be allowed to prevent other cruelties.


Don't take any of the above to be my personal position on the question of the proper legal status of abortion in the U.S. This is just a polite discourse on the points raised by anonymous.