Sunday, August 2, 2009

Why Do People Support Abortion?

One thing that has always puzzled me about the abortion movement is the determination and passion with which "pro-choicers" cling to the idea of legalized abortion.

I have looked carefully at the arguments of abortion supporters and found them to be unconvincing. I can never get myself past the conclusion that abortion is supported by so many because it frees people from taking responsibility for their actions.

I find it difficult to believe that most abortion supporters do not on some level realize that abortion is indeed the killing of a child. The evidence after all is irrefutable. The fetus has its own set of DNA, independent of its mother, at conception. Is DNA not an indicator of a human life? Brainwaves, heartbeat, fingerprints, etc. all develop very early in the process. Are these not indicators of a human life? Moreover, how can anyone who has seen a sonogram of a baby in the womb support abortion?

So, I have been asking myself, why do supporters of abortion so vehemently cling to their beliefs? Why do they want to spread those beliefs around the world? Why do prominent supporters, like President Obama, oppose any restrictions whatsoever on the practice of abortion? Why, for feminists, has abortion become the central concern to the welfare of women?

Father Tad Pacholczyk, author of the monthly column Making Sense of Bioethics, this week argues that those who support abortion do so in defiance of logic. So why why does support for abortion persist? The answer he proposes is a simple, but convincing one. The sexual revolution does not work without abortion:

...Perhaps the most plausible explanation of why abortion advocates will so readily defy logic and ignore the obvious came from writer Dale Vree. He had been invited to a "living-room discussion" on abortion back in 1989 which included six prominent pro-lifers, six prominent pro-choicers, and one or two undecideds.

Vree expected that the heart of the debate would hinge on when life began, but it didn't. It didn't even turn on the hard cases -- rape and incest. When one of the radical feminists argued that abortion is simply about the right to make choices, one of the pro-lifers replied that the choice was made back when the woman agreed to have sex. Then one of the pro-choicers finally blurted out: "We're pro-sex and you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to heterosexual marriage. . . . They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the sexual revolution, and that revolution will wither without the insurance which is abortion and this is their bottom-line concern."

This indeed appears to be the crux of the matter, the central concern that has motivated radical feminists, Hollywood, and many other advocates of abortion to sacrifice untold millions of unborn babies since the early 1970's. George Jonas zeroed in on this same bottom-line explanation: " We invent euphemisms, such as 'choice' for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia's quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment -- least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite."

In the final analysis, this stands as probably the single greatest tragedy of our time, that the unordered and inordinate sexual desires of men and women have been allowed to twist the most rudimentary moral logic to the point of death for so many of our children. Full column.

I think Father has hit the nail on the head.

No form of contraception is 100% effective. So, if there is going to widespread sex outside of marriage (fornication in the blunt language of the old days), how does one escape the "burden" of the inevitable pregnancies that will occur? Abortion.

So, in the end, the uncomfortable truth of abortion (i.e. the killing of a baby) must yield to the desire for sexual pleasure.

29 comments:

  1. It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey said this:

    The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.

    In short, the Supreme Court is saying: Because contraception is legal, so too must abortion be legal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, John!

    I had not seen that wording before.

    I cannot believe they actually put that thought down on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i agree with your point of view. its just that, what if you are in the part that abortion days and you are the one in the place who is about to be killed? do you want it? they didn't realize the importance of life.

    Smith | hospital medical equipment

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So no women have commented, eh? 'Nuff said. If you don't have a uterus, try talking to someone who does. Or, you can offer everyone who needs an abortion (notice, I said "needs") $800,000 or an offer to adopt the child - every one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You do realize that pro-choicers don't think that abortion is a good thing, don't you? Of course it's a tragedy when somebody becomes pregnant who doesn't want or does not feel ready for the baby yet. Of course, the less abortions occur, the better.

    But, if you feel that an abortion is wrong - nobody is making you get one. If you want to have the baby and either raise it yourself or put it up for adoption, you are more than welcome to. But don't force us to adhere to your viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You raised the point of prolife yourself. You can put the baby up for adoption. The four main reasons that people stick to their promurder ways are:
      1. Rape - this almost never results in any problems with the babies and abortions have been known to cause more pain than childbirth. You can keep the child or put it up for adoption.
      2. Incest - promurderers argue that it results in birth defects. This only occurs about 2% more in the first generation. Solution is adoption.
      3. Unloving family - simple, put the child up for adoption
      4. Possible birth defects - how would you know this?
      Keep this in mind when advocating abortion: abortion has been known to increase risk of cancer. First raises chances to 150% as often as nonabortion people. Second raises cances to nearly 1000%.

      Delete
  8. I believe that even if humans were born with knowledge that human life begins at conception and believed it completely, the people who currently advocate abortion would still do so. All arguments about abortion I've ever witnessed or read about end with the crux of the issue being the female's choice, regardless of the issue of murder. What pro lifers have to realize is that the people they are dealing with would murder babies even with the sure knowledge that they were truly viable human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am a woman, and I will gladly comment. I am a feminist and I strongly oppose abortion. Just as I would not murder my five-year-old to "save money" I would not murder an unborn child.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is so simply and I dont understand why people like you dont get it....it's better to make it legal and give EVERYONE the option, keep the option there; no one is saying if you get pregnant then you MUST get an abortaion, it's allowing people who truly can't afford, support, or want a child due to circumstances included rape (which has nothing to do with taking responsibility for our actions...sorry but I'm not going to take responsibility and mess up my entire life with a kid when I'm doing my own thing and not ready for one because of some asshole rapist). Dont get an abortion if you're against it, but like many here are saying: Dont get one if you're against it, but dont illegalize it for the rest of us who want the option for certain situations. Its better to leave the option available so it satisfies BOTH sides of the arguement, if you're for then get one, if you're against then dont get one...stop worrying about what other people do around you!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So we should make it an option to kill any random stranger as we see fit without consequences? Wow, that was eye opening...

      Delete
  11. In a liberal's mind, it is perfectly acceptable to allow termination of a life from 0 months - 6 months old. But when life reaches 9 months the liberals want to ban circumcision because they say it's cruel.

    They have as little regard for logic as they do compassion.



    ReplyDelete
  12. I am completely against abortion and I can't for the life of me figure out how people can support it. Lots of people say that if a woman is raped, she has the right to abort her child, but I don't think that's true at all. Because someone just took something from her, you'd think that she would think twice before taking something from her unborn baby - his/her life. People who are raped seem to look at their unborn child as a burden or as a constant reminder of the horrible thing that happened to them. Instead, people should look at their child as such a blessing and such an amazing thing to come out of such a bad experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever been raped ? enough said !

      Delete
    2. Does the baby, who is the son or daughter of the woman raped, deserve to die because of the actions of the father?

      Delete
    3. A child can potentially link the women to her rapist forever. Rapists can actually go to court for permission to visit the child and mother and often win. Then there's the fact that pregnancy can cost over $9000, more if the mother has pregnancy issues. Abortion can be as low as $200. If she comes from a family with five other kids on the lower pay bracket, could her family even support her at all? What if she comes from a non Christian religion, i.e. no god and doesn't believe life starts at conception, where she could be excommunicated and left on the streets for becoming outside of marriage.

      Yes, the child has a right to life, but so does the mother. There lives are weighted equally. Don't prioritise one because it is younger, because that's practically your reasoning. The mom dies in labour. Who cares? We have a cute baby. Which I find sad. I mean, what if the mum is 12 years old? (it's possible)

      In short. Don't talk unless you have been in the situations abortion was invented for in the first place. The option needs to be there, but you don't have to choose it.

      Delete
  13. Blogger, since you're so enlightened in this topic, let me throw a hypothetical situation at you. You agree that life begins at conception, yes?

    Lets say one of these "Personhood" bills passes. Life is now defined as human at the moment of conception. Any attempt to or successful implementation of ending that life is murder. That life is a human being, with rights of its own.

    A pregnant woman gets arrested. Must the officer also read Miranda Rights to the "human" in the woman's body?

    If the woman is imprisoned, could the state then be sued for false imprisonment and kidnapping? These are, after all, innocent babies.

    If the woman accidentally slips and falls and has a miscarriage, can we then charge her with manslaughter?

    If a woman's body rejects the pregnancy with no external factors, could we still charge her with manslaughter? By Todd Akin's logic if a woman is raped she can't get pregnant because her body has a way of "shutting those things down". So, if she miscarriages, does that mean she didn't really want to be pregnant, and that was her body's way of "shutting it down"?

    We're delving into the realm of the absurd here, but they are questions that would come up if ever such a bill were to pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are so many logical fallacies in that statement. Sheesh...

      Delete
    2. Truly, laws are written to cover all possible circumstances, it's not black and white. The purpose to end legal abortions is not to fill our jails with women, it's to eliminate abortion as a form of birth control, which is what it is being used for 99% of the time. Rape and incest are not an epidemic, selfishness and ignorance are. I know women who have had an abortion, 20 some years later they are suffering with that decision they made when they were barely an adult. It eats at their soul, and I don't know if it will ever change for them. So sad, two lives ruined from one choice the government allowed them to make as teenagers.

      Delete
    3. Excuse me, but you were a fetus too. I don't think people understand that they could've been killed if abortion was put into place a long time ago. This woman I was talking to aborted 3 fetuses because they were girls and she had wanted a son. No matter what the situation, how can this be a just action? My mom risked her life to have my sister when all the doctors and even her family told her to abort the child. She refused and said that the baby was a human and was a part of her and she was going to take responsibility for it. I couldn't of asked for a more amazing mother. And yes, I am a woman.

      Delete
  14. Hi! It takes some nerve to comment on an article from three years ago and expect a response from its author, but I'll step in and take a swing. Your questions are fairly off-topic, given that the point of the article was to examine the core motivation behind support of legalized abortion, and made no mention of personhood amendments.

    However, if a personhood amendment were to pass, you're correct that these situations would need to be addressed. There is no question that some thorny legal battles would come out of such a law, but nothing you brought up does or could alter whether or not an innocent fetus has a right to live. To your points:

    If a pregnant woman gets arrested, it would be similar to a situation in which a parent was arrested while holding an infant in her arms. The child is being accused of nothing, and therefore would not require a separate Miranda.

    If a pregnant woman were imprisoned after the passage of a personhood amendment, little would change from what happens in that sad situation today. The state would, in the absence of other family or community members who were able to step in, be responsible for the welfare of the child. That would mean providing prenatal care for the mother while she was in prison, and arranging for the postpartum care of the child until the mother was released. This is not considered kidnapping today, nor would it be if the personhood of the fetus were legally recognized.

    The Wikipedia page on manslaughter is fairly brief and worth reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

    Miscarriage as the result of a slip-and-fall would not be manslaughter. Manslaughter requires either: 1) malice aforethought (voluntary manslaughter), 2) killing in the course of another crime (constructive manslaughter), or 3) an omission to act when there is a duty to do so (criminally negligent manslaughter). None of these apply to pure accidents.

    The Todd Akin question is founded on the right good congressman's complete misunderstanding of whether or not a woman becomes pregnant after intercourse because she wants to become pregnant, and therefore is probably not worth addressing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am pro-choice but I am personally against abortion. Here is one thing I do not understand. Are you aware that most pro-choice advocates are against abortion. I have a personal relationship with our Lod. That decision is between God and Myself! Can't you see how the church is alienating Catholics who believe that choice is between God and them. The Catholic Church defies anyone who believes in Pro-Choice. Which causes disconnects and discord among families. ProChoice does not mean Pro-Abortion!My sister is Gay. She has suffered her whole life trying to deny her sexuality! I've cried many a tears with her. She has been with her partner for almost 20 years. How can I deny or snub someone who lives a life a goodness more than anyone I know. She has a heart of gold. Always showing love in her everyday life.She doesn't preach she lives a holy life.God made her the way she is. If she could change, believe me she would. She has tried over and over to deny her sexuality! This is where I am with the Catholic Church. We were raised Catholic, with a family of nine children. I can overlook the fact that the church is against same sex marriage, I can live with that. With all the children out there who need someone to love, cherish and raise them, why do they look down on them parenting those that need someone to love them so much. God says, "And the greatest of all these is LOVE"! Another question that boggles my mind. Most "Good Catholics" are Republicans. Yet, every program to help the poor, programs that might elevate the poor and thus reduce abortions because of financial ability to have a child, they're against. They vote against any bill that might help thier lot in life. How dsoes a "Good Catholic" justify that? These are the worries that "Cafeteria Catholics"(lol) struggle with. When is the Catholic Church ever going to address this. Not just helping the poor but elevating them out of thier terrible lot in life.Why don't they work to get at the root of the problem that CAUSES so many abortion?? I have not been to church in over a year, until I can get a sense of understanding about this I feel like a hypocrit entering the church with these thoughts of hypocrasy! My catholic friends don't agree with the church on these matters either but they are able to put it in the back of thier mind. I want to but I can't! Katie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ARE aware that abortion KILLS a living human being, right?

      So... Is any OTHER homicide acceptable to you, as long as you pray to your god afterwards?

      How do you feel about rape? Is that not a man's choice?

      Instead of belching out conveniently self-serving religious ignorance, try THINKING. 1.2 million lives are ending every year thanks to people just like you. I don't think your god would be too happy with that.

      Delete
    2. Saying you are personally pro life but support abortion is like saying I am opposed to Nazi Death camps, but I won't try to stop them from gasing Jews, Gypsies and Poles. If something is evil and is murder, it is evil. Don't deceive yourself into thinking you can have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. Actually, there is no evidence to suggest that life begins at conception. 3 months maybe? but not conception. That is down to your personal religious belief. So, at the moment of conception it is the potential for life more so than someone actually being alive. If you want to stop abortion being birth control because of this, restrict who can get it but don't out right ban it.

      Delete
  16. I am pro life and proud of the fact that I will fight those who think that others aren't worthy of life. We must remember the Nazi declaration of "Life Unworthy of Life" for people they determined to be expendable for the good of the rest of the population. Look at the lengths those who believe in this barbarism have to go to legitimize this ultimate act of selfish cruelity.
    They try to deny the fact of the new person conceived, has it's own unique genetic code. They use the hard cases of rape and incest, but ask them what limits they are willing to put on any abortions. The true answer is they don't beleive in any, they a absolutists when it comes to their "Rights" to kill other inconvenient "Fetuses". In the position of life has science on its side and we don't need ethical semantics to defend our position. No matter what their position always ends in tragic death, for a defenseless Homo Sapien a member of our Human family.

    Like president Reagan said many years ago.

    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born".

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You do realize that pro-choicers don't think that abortion is a good thing, don't you? Of course it's a tragedy when somebody becomes pregnant who doesn't want or does not feel ready for the baby yet. Of course, the less abortions occur, the better.

    But, if you feel that an abortion is wrong - nobody is making you get one. If you want to have the baby and either raise it yourself or put it up for adoption, you are more than welcome to. But don't force us to adhere to your viewpoint."

    Of course leftists love abortion! They fight for it to the exclusion of all else: women's rights (see China), human rights, and basic logic. "If you don't like infanticide, don't commit it!" Do you realize how sociopathic you sound?

    ReplyDelete