In a study published by the Lozier Institute in 2023 reviewing 1000 women ages 41-45, it was found that 67% of women considered their abortions to be ““accepted but inconsistent with their values and preferences” (43%) or “unwanted or coerced” (24%)“. Meanwhile, only 33% of women in the study wanted their abortion and 60% would’ve preferred to give birth if they had more emotional or financial support. Furthermore, a report from Clinic Quotes from 2012 states that in 95% of abortion cases, men play a role in coercing the women to abort their child saying:
In 95% of cases, men play a central role in the decision to abort according to a survey of women at abortion clinics.(4)
Husbands and boyfriends threaten women at the clinic. A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the husbands and boyfriends who took them to the clinics to make sure they had abortions.(5)
Dangerous consequences if she resists. Coercion can escalate to violence and even murder.(2) Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women.(6)
The “Forced Abortion in America” report includes examples of molesters posing as fathers to procure cover-up abortions and women being fired, beaten, shot, stabbed, tortured or killed for refusing to abort.(2)
They also cite numerous studies showing how 60% of women experience regret after the abortion, 65% of women experience PTSD like symptoms, and 62% are at an increased chance of death from all causes.
There are numerous other reports talking about this that you can easily find online, but this paints the general picture for us. Abortion, though it’s touted as being pro-choice, is not, but still, many of our politicians believe that it should be legal. Even President Trump, though he did the constitutional thing in turning Roe v. Wade over to the states, criticized Florida’s six-week abortion ban calling it a “terrible mistake.” In allowing abortion to continue, we are inviting in countless ethical and moral dilemmas that justify the worst atrocities known to man.
The first ethical problem that abortion raises is this: “When does life begin?” It’s a question that we’re obliged to ask ourselves when discussing abortion, no matter what side you’re on. If you have read my post from last Monday about abortion and the science around it, you’ll know that even from a scientific viewpoint, life starts at conception. What this means is that tiny child growing in the womb is a living human, which means that killing it is murder. While science doesn’t have any law against murder, throughout human history we have had an understanding that murder is evil, which is why there are laws against it. I’ll talk more about the legal ramifications of abortion in a post later this month, but if that child is alive and is growing in the womb and has not done anything illegal or caused any sort of harm to the mother, then under the law, killing that innocent person is illegal. There is no way to adequately justify it otherwise.
Moreover, by making abortion legal and making the age where life begins arbitrary (since the actual science doesn’t rake in as much money for people like Planned Parenthood, which is one of the Democrat Party’s largest supporters), then you are opening the flood gates for other laws that justify medical malpractice resulting in what should be considered murder. Already, we’re seeing this in Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, California, and Hawai’i and Washington, D.C. and internationally in Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Ecuador, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and others in the form of laws such as the MAID Act in Canada. This allows doctors or nurse practitioners to kill patients 18 and up for anything ranging from terminal illnesses to poor mental health. While they claim that the patient must meet certain criteria to get “help” from these assisted suicide policies, Canada has recently expanded the criteria to include things such as hearing loss, which experts are now (correctly) saying is a human rights violation.
This also, when followed to its logical conclusion, means that murder in general is okay and can be justified. This logic would mean that you could absolutely kill your annoying toddler or senile grandpa and not face charges because of XYZ reason and not be held accountable. If the pro-abortion argument that babies can be killed because they don’t have a certain mental capacity yet is true, then you could easily justify killing someone because they’re senile, have a mental disorder, or are just ignorant.
This logic then justifies eugenics. In my post titled “Is God a Genocidal Maniac?“, I mentioned the founder of Planned Parenthood and flaming eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. I said, quote:
Keep Margaret Sanger in mind here because it was she who founded Planned Parenthood and it was also Sanger who said that “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty…there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” And now, while the world now claims to decry eugenics when it was once considered the salvation of mankind, the World Health Organization now reports that about 73 million induced abortions occur every year worldwide, and that’s not counting the ones that go unreported. In Iceland, only one or two babies are born every year with Down Syndrome not because they’ve found a miraculous cure to the genetic mutation, but rather because they abort almost 100% of Down Syndrome babies. Denmark follows this number with 98% of Down Syndrome babies being aborted and the United States aborting 67% of them.
But how do we define the “good-for-nothing.” After all, laws in favor of abortion are already incredibly arbitrary and are usually defined by whatever benefits corrupt politicians the most. When that’s the case, the “good-for-nothing” could range from babies who will be born with Down Syndrome or other disabilities/deformities to those who are another race. In fact, we’ve already seen this, too, in the fact that Margaret Sanger’s mission for Planned Parenthood was to kill non-white babies because she saw them as a blight on the world (something that she’s been very successful at as black women are more 5x more likely to abort their babies than white women).
Abortion, alongside being racist to its core, is also a very misogynistic practice. Though the movement claims to be pro-women’s rights, in some places like China and India, female babies are more likely to be aborted. Under China’s infamous one child policy, millions of females were killed through abortions and infanticide in preference of male children. Today, China is feeling the negative effects of this as they face an increasingly ageing population because there aren’t enough women to bear the next generation. This situation has gotten so bad that China has had to resort to importing wives from other countries to make up for it. Human trafficking also booms there. In an interview with Prager University, North Korean defector Yeonmi Park talked about how she was sold as a prostitute at 13-years-old after crossing the border into China and recounted how one woman will be sold to an entire village of men where she is raped constantly until she eventually dies. All of this because of their one child policy that encouraged women to abort their female children.
Another way it’s misogynistic is that it actually benefits men more than women. As I cited before, 95% of abortions involve the men pressuring the women into getting the abortion for reasons ranging from they don’t want to be a father to they want to cover up the rape. This is especially common in trafficking rings where pimps will force women to abort their child so they can continue selling them. In these cases, abortion – the practice that we’re all told is a middle finger to the dastardly patriarchy – actually helps the worst men in society to the detriment of women’s physical and mental health.
Lastly, abortion puts the punishment on the wrong person. In the cases of rape and incest, the baby ends up getting the death penalty that the rapist father should have gotten. Abortion treats the baby as a scapegoat for the criminal. That is not just in any sense.
If you want justice, you shouldn’t be for abortion.
Until next time,
M.J.
The Tanuki Corner 
Rather than continually become embroiled in this emotional merry go round maybe it’s high time to allocate more energy and money and invest in developing a form of contraception that shuts down the human reproductive system 100% until such time as the woman or the couple decide a child is wanted.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you bring that up. I’m part of an apologetics group and we’ve been talking with an author and researcher named Carl Teichrib who wrote the book “Game of Gods” (a very interesting book which discusses how the shift away from Christianity is affecting politics worldwide) and he actually brought up that exact point. Apparently, people have actually suggested developing that very thing for the purpose of “saving the planet.” It’s not a revolutionary new idea. (The idea of making it a mandatory thing for everyone except those who have a license to have a child has also been thrown around before.)
However, even that brings up the ethical dilemmas of 1). How will that affect society at large? and 2). How will societal perception of the rights of primarily women change in response to that? Already, sex is perceived today as something casual things to birth control and abortion where if you get a girl pregnant, she can just terminate the baby, and you go free. This has in part led to the societal rejection of the institution of marriage, which has historically been seen as the glue with which society is held together. If you can get contraceptives that shut down the human reproductive system completely until you choose to come off of it, then why have marriage since there’s (seemingly) no more risk to free sex? Marriage just becomes something where the only point of it is the tax benefits. Furthermore, if this contraceptive shuts down the reproductive system, what’s to stop human traffickers from forcing women to take it so they can continue to sell them. That would probably be a lot cheaper than abortions and take less time.
Then there’s the medical side to that. No contraceptive for women is entirely safe. A lot of women are actually finding that from being on birth control that they have higher rates of infertility long after getting off of it, not to mention the million and one side effects it has. If we were to introduce a contraceptive that could totally block the human reproductive system temporarily, you have to ask the question of what the long-term side effects of that would be on an even larger scale since I assume it would also go for men as well.
LikeLike
I found the exact quote that Teichrib was referring to. It was from a dude named David Bower who was the founder of Friends of the Earth. He said: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
LikeLike
The notion that there would be no point to marriage if free sex was available illustrates a naievity and profound ignorance.
Long term contraception for women is already available and I know of married couples who have availed themselves of it. I agree that no current medical procedure I am aware of is 100% safe but this is a worthy goal to strive for.
At no point did I suggest such contraception should be mandatory. However, like so many things of it became regarded as culturally acceptable there is a stronger likelihood more people would avail themselves of it
My point was intended to highlight that, the amount of energy and money expended in vilifying abortion and those who partake to the point of banning it outright and prosecuting everyone involved could be put to much better use in developing better contraception for men and women, with the goal of all but eliminating the abortion debate entirely.
LikeLike
I was not suggesting that you were saying that it should be mandatory. I included that quote to point out the the idea of contraceptives cutting off 100% of the reproductive system has been around for a long time (I also think it serves to point out that through what many would see as a noble undertaking, it could be used by power hungry politicians for evil).
To your point that free sex doesn’t eliminate the point of the institution of marriage, then I must ask you this: What do you define marriage as and why? What is marriage there to achieve in your view? And why is it that in cases where the nuclear family is promoted and promiscuity is taboo that those countries and communities are much stronger and last longer than ones where it’s the other way around?
Lastly, if more people used this contraception, would that really help them? Or would that lead to more promiscuity that leads to more STDs and serious mental issues? Would it decrease the sexual objectification of women and girls or increase it since there would be less of a chance of them getting pregnant? From potential complications due to the birth control, would we have more sick men, women, and potential offspring or fewer? What would happen to children suffering from complications from whatever residue is left behind from the birth control? Would we keep them or still abort them? While it might reduce the rates of abortions, we’ll be choosing one set of evils for another and it still doesn’t solve the root cause of the issue which is the fact that abortion is legal and encouraged in the first place.
I believe that if we really want to get rid of these issues, we must first realize that abortion is murder since life starts at conception, then do things the old fashioned way and go back to a widespread Biblical understanding that sex is to be saved for marriage. We encourage chastity again and stop encouraging people to sleep around. That way, abortion rates, STDs, mental health, and the use of widespread contraceptives will go down drastically. Furthermore, rapists and traffickers should be punished more harshly to discourage future perps and victims of these crimes should be given more support and more options other than abortion. For unwanted babies, adoption should become easier so they can be adopted by people who want to raise them (more people are willing to adopt a baby than a ten year old). That would probably be cheaper than what you’re proposing. However, until that happens, I’ll continue to advocate for the right to life for babies in the womb.
LikeLike
1. Any idea can be taken and corrupted,but as abortion is such a highly emotive issue would it not be better if it were not an issue at all?
2. Why do you need my definition of marriage? Your point implies it is simply a union to indulge in socially acceptable free sex, which again suggests to me a profound ignorancetl of what marriage is. Do you honestly consider I asked my wife to marry me simply to be able to have sex as and when I felt like it? I find the mere suggestion risible not to mention insulting, to her as well as me.
As for the assumed stability of the nuclear family. You are obviously unaware of the divorce statistics and among which groups. I suggest you do a bit more research before you make sweeping statements.
Why would a genuine long term form of contraception encourage promescuity?
The pill has been available for decades, condoms even longer. Neither are 100% reliable, neither necessarily prevent STDs, and the pill can cause problems.
If people want to have a they will and ajways have done.
Abortions have always been done and in times past many women died as a result.
You seem to objecting to the idea of developing a medically safe yet temporary long term form of contraception for men and women that removes the emotional issue of abortion from the equation. Such contraception would be available to all, including married couples. To be frank I am at a loss to know the reason for your apparent rejection as assuming it had no negative side effects it would be a boon and only those strident irrational religious fundamentalists who see sex solely as a means for procreation would have grounds to whine.
Your final paragraph has zero relevance to my original comment and is simply an emotional tirade apparently fuelled by your religious beliefs.
LikeLike
To your first point: Yes, I can agree that it would be better if abortion was not an issue at all. However, the reality is that it is a problem. Introducing more contraceptives will not solve the problem. At best, it would be an ill-fitting bandage on a gaping wound. Sure, it would cause there to be fewer abortions since fewer women would be getting pregnant, but what happens if a woman or a couple does decide they want to have a child, the woman gets pregnant, then decides she doesn’t want the kid anymore for whatever reason such as Down Syndrome? It’s too late to take the birth control, so will abortion still be legal? If so, then the problem continues.
(I would also like to say regarding contraceptives that though I do think they have led to problems, if you gave me a choice between deciding if someone should go on birth control or take the Plan-B pill, I would go with the birth control because it’s more ethical not to conceive the child, then to conceive one and then kill it. But again, contraceptives don’t solve the problem. They only partially Band-Aid it.)
To your second point, I ask what your definition of marriage for this reason: a Biblical understanding of marriage (which is how I understand it) is that it’s the union of one man and one woman who mutually love, care, support, and are committed to each other and is – in a perfect world – an Earthly reflection of Christ’s love for the church. Sex in that relationship is then meant to bring those two people closer together emotionally (science has shown that it does just that as it releases the hormone oxytocin, which is the same hormone that emotionally connects a mother to her child) and hopefully will bring about children. Even if you don’t want to have children in a marriage, saving sex until then is always a better choice because then marriage helps provide protective barriers if a child is conceived. If marriage is just because you love/care/support for each other (which is still a noble thing, don’t get me wrong), then what makes it much different than just being in a long-term relationship with your girlfriend/boyfriend except the fact that it’s legally recognized by the state (it’s even hard to argue that divorce differentiates the two because if you’re dating someone and living with them for a long enough time, the state will recognize it as a common law marriage and breaking up will be much messier)? Perhaps I am just showing my youth and inexperience in this question and maybe my opinion will change over time, but I think this is something to think about.
Continuing with this line of thought, the reason why I think a 100% effective miracle contraceptive would possibly increase promiscuity is because even if the lady you’re with isn’t on the pill, if you are, there’s even less reason for you to be held accountable for your actions. After all, women still get pregnant even when they’re on the birth control we have now. You still run that risk and is something that more people should understand. But with the hypothetical contraceptive in question, you would totally remove that. But I can agree that the amount that it would increase would be questionable, especially since as it is now, people are still sleeping around.
Now for your claim about the stability of the nuclear family. I have seen the divorce rates that about 50% of marriages end in divorce and your average marriage today only lasts 7 years. It’s absolutely something that concerns me. However, (and this could be more correlation, not causation), I do think that a lot of divorces could be avoided if promiscuity and its glorification in the culture was made taboo again. For example, in a 2016 study by Nicholas Wolfinger using data from 2002-2013, it was found that women who had had ten or more sexual partners before marriage had the highest five-year divorce rate. Meanwhile it was found that women with no or one previous partner had the lowest divorce rates. Though I will admit that the numbers aren’t linear, it does tell us something about divorce rates and promiscuity that I don’t think should be ignored. Having multiple partners can signal impulsivity and possible commitment issues, both of which can be serious red flags. This is why I think that the more we go back to saving sex until marriage, hopefully it will create healthier marriages and more stability. That’s not say every marriage will be perfect, but it would be better than what we have today.
As for your claim that my final paragraph is “an emotional tirade apparently fueled by your religious beliefs,” while I can see how you might think that because I do have a strong religious bias towards how we deal with these issues, I do think that my suggestions are just common sense. For example (and I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you here), with my suggestion that rapists and traffickers should be punished more harshly to discourage people from committing those crimes, that should be a commonsense policy whether or not you’re a Christian. I don’t consider that to be fueled by emotions but rather fueled by logic and an understanding that people are less likely to commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severely for them.
But, to end this, while I think that this opens up some interesting arguments about ethics and society, we’re ultimately arguing about hypotheticals. A 100% effective, 100% safe contraceptive would likely never be created. I think it would simply take too much time and money to research, develop, and test something that would probably not even work without causing massive harm to the test subjects. It’s interesting to consider but isn’t realistic. Even if it did exist, as long as abortion is still legal, we will still be fighting this fight, miracle contraceptive or no.
LikeLike
To your last point first as this is the thrust of the discussion.
What you consider a hypothetical is, once again, irrelevant.
There is no reason to consider a 100% effective contraceptive will not be developed, one that had no side effects and can be used by both men and women.
To suggest it would cause more promiscuity is, again irrelevent as we are discussing abortion.
LikeLike
Okay. You believe what you believe, and I’ll believe what I believe. We’ve both made our points; time to move on.
LikeLike
As an aside, but on the same subject, understanding what we do about the drug thalidomide, would you grant this was grounds for the termination of a pregnancy?
LikeLike
Let me ask you a question in turn: Should Steven Hawking’s life been ended because of his condition? Though it wasn’t a birth defect such as what happened to children from thalidomide, it still stands to point out that though his life was certainly much harder, his disability didn’t nullify his humanity. Thus, I believe it’s the same with children who were exposed to thalidomide. Wouldn’t it have been more ethical to let them come to term and then do everything you can to save them and help them through life than to kill them? Or if they were to die, wouldn’t it be better to let them die naturally than to kill them in excruciating fashion that they would be able to feel?
Also to the same point of why disability doesn’t nullify your rights as a human, I had a friend who had a brain condition called ACC at my last church. He was an awesome friend and was smarter than people gave him credit for, but still had the mental capacity at best of a 12 year old though he was 16-17 when I knew him. That didn’t mean, however, that he wasn’t deserving of life. I also have a cousin who was supposed to have been born with Down Syndrome and the doctor recommended that his mother abort him, but he was born just fine, and even had he had it, there are plenty of Down Syndrome patients who go on to do amazing things with their lives. And that’s not even mentioning the advancements in medical technology that could greatly help people who have birth defects and deformities (for example: if thalidomide was still a problem today, one of the things that could be done for children suffering from its side effects are prosthetic limbs, many of which today are highly advanced with computerization that can interact with neural signals. There were even prosthetics being made for those kids all the way back when it was a problem, though they were rudimentary by today’s standards.)
LikeLike
Re:: thalidomide
I presume your answer to my question would be : No, this would not be grounds for terminating a pregnancy.
Do you consider there any grounds for terminating a pregnancy?
LikeLike
I believe that the only time where it would be acceptable to terminate the pregnancy is if it is actively endangering the mother’s life (such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy). I would also like to say that if the child is already dead, that’s a miscarriage and should be treated as such.
LikeLike
So if you had your wish any woman diagnosed carrying a thalidomide child would be forced/ obliged to carry to term, yes?
How about early detection of the Zika virus in a foetus?
Considering the high risk of ( documented) severe brain damage and other anomalies would you regard this as grounds for pregnancy termination?
LikeLike
No, that’s not a reason to terminate the pregnancy because as I pointed out with the thalidomide question, deformity/disability does not mean that they don’t have less/any value as a human. They’re still a human being, even if they look or act different or their lives are harder than ours. And as I pointed out in this post, once you start using deformity/disability as grounds to kill a child, where does it end? Does it become grounds to kill people outside of the womb who have deformities or disabilities?
I also feel like I should ask you this question: If I were to make fun a seriously autistic person or a person in a wheelchair, would you consider that to be ableist and say that I should be ashamed for acting that way? If your answer to that question is yes, then how come it’s okay to kill a kid in the womb because they’re disabled or deformed? Isn’t that ableism? Wouldn’t that be discrimination on the basis of a disability? Doesn’t that sound reminiscent of the justification the Nazis used when taking people that they considered to be “undesirables” (which included deformed and disabled people) to the gas chambers?
LikeLike
To my mind, knowingly bringing a thalidomide pregnancy to term suggests a degree of narcissm that is difficult to fathom.
Why would you make fun of an austistc person under any circumstances?
I do not consider one is “killing a kid” in the womb.
You did not answer if you would terminate a pregnancy if a foetus is diagnosed with Zika virus.
LikeLike
1. Your statement of: “Why would you make fun of an autistic person under any circumstances?” is a red herring. Please answer the question: would you consider making fun of a disabled person be ableist? If you do think its ableist, then how is killing a baby/fetus/embryo that has a deformity or will be born disabled not ableist? Unless you’re implying by this question that you would consider making fun of an autistic person ableist, you’re avoiding answering the question I asked.
Secondly, I did answer your question about if I would terminate a pregnancy if the fetus was diagnosed with Zika virus. The answer is a resounding no. I do not believe that killing a child when it does not actively pose a threat to the mother’s life is the moral or ethical thing to do. If that baby has disabilities from the Zika virus, yes, it will have a harder time outside of the womb, but it’s not our place to end that baby’s life. That child is still a human and deserves the same rights and protections as everyone else outside of the womb.
LikeLike
1. I would consider making fun of any disability unconsionable.
Terminating a pregnancy when the foetus has been diagnosed with a chronic debilitating disease is a personal decision. Furthermore, it is not “killing a kid” in the womb. If it were, the legal term would be murder. There is a very good reason why it is not.
2. I apologize. After I reread your previous reply I realised you were referring to the case of Zika virus in a foetus.
Is your position on abortion based on your religious beliefs?
LikeLike
But who is that personal decision made by, the mother or the child? Obviously, the mother makes that choice because the child can’t communicate yet. Thus, it’s still an infringement on the human rights of that baby because it doesn’t have any say in the matter. If an old person went senile, sure they wouldn’t be able to take care of themselves adequately and the relatives will have to make decisions on their behalf, but they can’t make the personal decision to kill the senile person. That would be very illegal, so why is it not illegal when a mother does that to her child? The only reason that I can see as to why it’s not called murder is because it simply lines the pockets of too many powerful people who have convinced several generations that the fetus is not a living human for anyone to make laws totally condemning it as murder at every stage.
As for your question about if my stance is based on my religious beliefs, while that does play a big part of it, I’ve also formed my option of why abortion is wrong by looking at what the science actually says about the matter, what the Constitution (which is brought up frequently in the abortion debate) says, what the history of how abortion became popular in modern society is, and where the logic used to justify abortion would end (spoiler: it ends in justifying some of the worst atrocities in human history.)
LikeLike
Which brings us back full circle to the question of contraception.
As can be seen from our discussion this is a highly charged emotional topic, and although you disagree, strong arguments can be made and defended for those who support pro choice.
However, as I opened this discussion on contraption I will close with the same.
The most sensible choice is the one that invests the time and the energy in the development of a universal form of contraception that is 100% effective and allows a women or couple to choose to conceive a child when they feel they are ready to do so.
LikeLike
While that may be a good idea in theory (though I don’t agree with it), in reality it won’t happen or there will need to be some more major, major medical advancements before it does, ones that simply aren’t coming soon. Moreover, the reality is that nothing comes free. There is always an opportunity cost hidden somewhere in the fine print. You can’t have a 100% effective contraceptive (or any other drug) without some sort of trade off. You also can’t force the people who “need” it most to use it. So wouldn’t it make more sense just to get rid of abortion or at least add more barriers around it, educate women on what their other options are and provide more support for them, work to make promiscuity taboo again, and more harshly punish rapists and traffickers.
(Most rapists are given an average sentence of 9.8 years but because they’re also usually given the chance of getting out for good behavior, they’re back on the streets in an average of 5.4 years doing God knows what. An example of disgracefully lax our judicial system is in doling out punishments for rapists is the case of Mary Vincent, a girl who was raped, mutilated, and left for dead in the 70s who managed to survive and help police track down her attacker, who only served just over 8 years of his 14 year sentence and was only put on death row after he murdered a woman in Florida shortly after being released.)
LikeLike
Our discussion really has nothing to do with traffikkers and rapists so I don’t understand why you keep flogging this horse?
Abortion has always been part of society for as long as people have had sex and women fell pregnant.
Making it illegal only drives it underground and as has been seen recently on a few occasions in your country women have died because of the recent overturning of Roe v Wade.
Therefore, with this in mind, outlawing abortion is not the solution.
The drive for a 100% effective form of contraception as I initially described is the better option.
And who knows what medical advances may be developed in the years to come
regarding human reproduction?
Furthermore religious considerations should not be a factor regarding contraception either.
Maybe I have misread the signals, but I have a feeling you really have little interest in promoting contraception but rather are simply focussed on banning abortion, full stop.
LikeLike
As to your last paragraph, yes. I’m more concerned with banning abortion than promoting contraception because unless contraception is made mandatory for everyone (which would also most likely be a human rights violation because you’re forcing something on people without their express consent), there would still be people who don’t take it, get pregnant, and decide to kill their child via legal abortions. And even if they do get off of contraceptives, as I’ve pointed out before, what happens if the kid has a deformity or disability that the couple doesn’t want to deal with because it’s not aesthetically pleasing to them or easy? If they can still get an abortion, then we’re still having this conversation.
While I agree the abortions have happened in the past for as long as humanity has been around, that doesn’t make it right. It’s still murder. Criminalizing abortion, though it would drive it underground, would make it easier to prosecute so doctors and others who perform it can be thrown in prison.
You also make the point that since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, more women have died allegedly because of lack of abortion “care” is an obvious lie. Even during Roe v. Wade, women were dying from getting abortions, with the exact number (last I checked) being more or less the same as the number of women who die giving birth every year. To say that women are dying more after Roe v. Wade is pure absurdity, especially since in most states, you’re still allowed to get an abortion. Only a handful of states like Florida and Texas have banned abortion.
Furthermore, many abortions, even legal ones, are performed in clinics that are unsafe for the mother because in the case of an emergency, they are not prepared to deal with it. I heard one story of a girl whose father forced her to go to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion and when the abortionist had broken through her cervix to dilate her to begin the abortion, the instrument they were using ended up punching through the wall of the girl’s uterus, causing massive blood loss. However, instead of Planned Parenthood helping her and getting her to an ER to receive a blood transfusion, they instead finished the abortion and pumped her full of saline so she didn’t appear as deflated.
The abortion pill (which in a perfect world would also be banned) is also still legal post-Roe v. Wade and makes up most abortions. Not only is it one of the worst ways for a baby to die, but it’s also the most traumatic for the woman because she’s fully aware of what’s happening. She’s fully aware of how much blood she’s hemorrhaging as the pill does its job and can feel the pain as her body is now trying to expel the baby.
The reason I keep bringing up punishing rape and trafficking is because a lot of abortions world wide and in the United States happen because of the sex industry. Pimps don’t want to lose their women for 9 months since that’s 9 months where they’re not getting hundreds of dollars, so they force them into an abortion. Also, if rape is as common as abortion activists claim it is in abortion cases, then why shouldn’t we try to fix the problem by punishing the perps more harshly? That seems like common sense, doesn’t it?
Lastly, in a previous comment in this thread, you said that it’s narcissistic to have a mother carry a baby affected by thalidomide. Narcissism is an obsession with the self. It’s actually narcissistic to abort the child because its disabled for your own comfort. It’s selfless, however, to do whatever you can to help that kid live or let them pass naturally. Abortion in of itself is a narcissistic act for the woman if she elects to have it and for the man who forces the woman to get it since it removes all accountability. Sorry to be blunt, but the fact that you, a man, are defending this practice repulses me because men have a duty to protect the vulnerable women and children in society. By supporting abortion, you’re promoting a policy that kills an average of 73 million vulnerable children worldwide a year and takes advantage of millions of vulnerable women and girls who may be being abused at home.
LikeLike
I did not say more women have died since the overturning of Roe v Wade. Re-read the comment properly and try to remain focused. It will save you writing oodles of unnesseary words.
Again, and I will continue to make this point – because abortion is such an emotionally charged topic and because people will always have sex, in or out of a committed relationship where the chance exists of an unplanned pregnancy the development of a unisex, 100 % effective form of contraception without any negative side effects that prevents conception is the most sensible way forward.
Having such an option available without any accompanying social stigma would very likely see a large reduction in the number of global abortions.
It would a social revolution.
LikeLike