Ahh, abortion. A very touchy subject. Why is it so touchy?
Because it has a told of the far right AND far left, that's why. The
pro-lifers detest it for its murder of innocent children. The pro-choicers
see it as a government-protected right. So who "right"? Obviously
from my perspective, there is no "right" to kill an innocent human being.
It really is that simple. And the court sees it that way too.
That's why late-term abortions are illegal. So why are 1st and 2nd
trimester abortions legal? Does the baby undergo some miraculous
other-worldly metamorphosis at midnight on the 189th day that guarantees
it protection from its mother's wand of murder? Hmm. Let's take a
look at some of the claims of the pro-choicers and see how they stack up against
First let me make it perfectly clear that I have NEVER suggested outlawing
abortion, nor will you find ANYTHING on this web site that suggests this.
I'm merely making a claim that abortion is IMMORAL. I don't like
homosexuality, hunting, or vegetarianism either, but I'm certainly not going to
suggest they should be illegal. That is reserved for our friends on
the left posing as libertarians but better known as LIBERALS.
The government has no business telling a woman what
to do with her body.
Just like the government has no business telling a woman that she can't put
tobacco smoke in her body at certain locations? That argument doesn't
hold water in the least. We have all sorts of laws in place that control
your actions, even when there's no other person involved. There lots of
illegal drugs that you can't put in your body. Some of them require
prescriptions. At that point a doctor is telling you what you MAY do
with your body, right? So it's ok for somebody to tell you what to do
with your body when there's nobody else involved, but it's NOT ok to tell you
what to do with your body when there's an unborn baby involved?? Yeah,
that makes since.
"...the right to choose is absolute and always
outweighs the state's limitations in imposing limitations." -
So the state is going to protect my right to murder my neighbor?
According to this statement, the state's limitations on who and how an adult
can kill is far outweighed by the murderer's right to kill. Therefore,
the state should not get in my way to kill my neighbor, regardless of my
reasoning. I wonder if these huge proponents of "choice" are interested
in protecting my right to "choose" whether I own a gun or not. After
all, the state's limitations on owning guns are outweighed by my rights to
choose to own a gun. Likewise with nuclear weapons. What if I
"choose" to build an atomic bomb in my basement? State's limitations are
unconstitutional, I tell ya!!
"In Roe, the Court held that a woman has the right
to choose abortion until fetal viability -- the time at which it first becomes
realistically possible for a fetus to live outside the woman's body" -
Just coming out of my first experience with a pregnancy and with multiple
classes and other educational resources, I can tell you that the fetal
viability is NOT in the 27th week. Thousands of babies have been born
and survived earlier in their development, as early as the 20th week. So
by going with NARAL's own standards, they in fact support abortion beyond what
they deem is ethically correct. That would make them hypocrites.
"...these laws...are designed to deter women from
choosing abortion" -
Whooooaaaaaaahhhhh, horsie! Am I reading this correctly? Are
they upset because there are laws that ENCOURAGE women to not have abortions?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't "choice" also include NOT having an
abortion? I guess not to these people. "Choice" to them means
forcing women to have abortions and never even giving them the consideration
to choose to NOT have an abortion. Yeah, big proponents of choice
they are...as long as the "choice" is abortion.
"Women faced with unplanned pregnancies...their
infants, therefore, run an increased risk of low birthweight and infant
This actually says that it's ok to kill a baby if they are unhealthy.
This statement speaks volumes about the intentions of "pro-choicers".
"...the emotional and economic stress of an unplanned
child is overwhelming. Children who are unplanned are more likely to be abused,
and children born unwanted face increased risks of poor health, poverty and
And this statement says it's ok to kill children if you're poor. I'm
surprised these people are not HUGE proponents of forced
sterilization of the poor. According to their logic, that is the
best way to deal with children who MAY be abused or live in poverty. To
avoid the expense and time of abortions, it would make perfect sense to them
to just prevent them from getting pregnant in the first place.....or are their
intentions to kill as many babies as possible?
Basically what they're saying here is, "A life of poverty is not worth
living". I'm surprised they don't support laws to allow people who lose
their jobs and drop below the poverty line to kill off their children
one-by-one until they are financially capable of taking care of them again.
From this logic, I just don't understand why we send $$billions to starving
African countries in the midst of civil wars and droughts. If we just
held back that support, hundreds of thousands of them would die, and they
wouldn't have to live in poverty anymore, right? That makes perfect
sense to me!
"Unintended pregnancy...that could be alleviated by
a national reproductive health policy that encourages personal responsibility" -
Isn't it ironic how "personal responsibility" begins AFTER your pregnant?
Where's the call for a national reproductive health policy that encourages
women to NOT get pregnant in the first place?
Congress has banned access to abortion for virtually
every woman who depends on the federal government for her health care -
This is false. U.S. Congress banned access to abortion for NOBODY in
the United States. What they've done is they've made sure that EVERYBODY
ELSE doesn't have to pay for women's abortions. I can't wait for the day
to come when people with actually accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their
actions. Unfortunately, non-profit communists like NARAL insist that you
can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and everybody else must pay for