Tearing Apart Claims for Abortion Rights

by Maitreg
9/19/00

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 logic.

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." - NARAL

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" - NARAL

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" - NARAL

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 mortality" - NARAL

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 neglect" - NARAL

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" - NARAL

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 - NARAL

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 your mistakes.

Miscellaneous Articles

Come on, let's hear what you have to say about this.   It has become a bit of a hobby of mine to EASILY tear apart pro-choice statements because of their faulty or absent logic.  I'm still waiting for a pro-choicer to come with a valid argument to support their claim.

Links: