Those who want to get abortions aren't being forced into childbirth against their will, unless there was rape involved.
Pro-abortion activists seem to think they only have (or ought to have) a choice after they're already pregnant. The real choice was months earlier.
> The real choice was months earlier.
That is a large blanket assumption. Condom breakage, having a specific gene which makes female birth control very unreliable [1], partner reproductive coercion [2]. Among others. Given enough time, moral purity spirals into attacking then punishing the people wronged or having found themselves in an unfortunate situation. In this particular case, condom breakage, an unfortunate gene one didn't know they had, finding out too late you trusted the wrong partner [sneaky birth control sabotage] etc.
But modern values devalue life in part because they also devalue sex. They treat sex casually, as though it isn't the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise, and the very means by which more human life is created.
There would be no felt need for abortion to exist if sex and human life were both valued as they ought to be - as sacred, as gifts with a particular design not our own, as capable of great glory when used rightly -- and great devastation when used wrongly.
Consider how delicately and carefully we handle matters when the stakes are high - when there's the possibility of gaining or losing much based on our decisions. Sex and marriage and family ought to be held in high regard, because the stakes are so high. They can end so well -- or incredibly badly when handled outside their designed operating parameters.
Abortion to me represents the human collateral and fallout from having abandoned a right view of sex and marriage and family. So much death. Ideas have consequences, indeed.
As a side note, a high view of sex and life also increases the travesty that rape is. It's so much worse, morally speaking, than liberals can say it is given their moral framework.
Good god no. That may be fine for you as a personal religious view, but as a pluralistic society I hope we never go there again.
I hear this a lot, and it's currently a popular "wedge scenario" pro-abortion advocates are using to try to convince people that abortion shouldn't be outlawed.
But I think it's largely a red herring. Either the baby is still alive, or it's not. A high view of human life rules out all intentional taking of life, including assisted suicide. It would also rule out these types of abortions, as they are taking life at a time when life would not end naturally.
Valuing human life highly means accepting that while some people are different, we are all equally valuable -- even those who have birth defects or who die as an infant. And people with Down's syndrome are as equally valuable as those who don't.
If you’re concerned about people terminating fertilized cells as a means for genetic selection, you should rather turn your attention to IVF.
Which is fine if the baby is dead or there's a complication in which the mother's life is in immediate danger.
> you should rather turn your attention to IVF.
Agreed, that is a serious ethical issue, and yes it's morally equivalent to abortion. However, I'm afraid there aren't enough people who agree with my stance to make a difference (maybe I'm wrong?)
As stated in my first comment, the politicians currently running for office in my area do not agree with your viewpoint, as they have insisted that they will ban abortion even in the case of fetal death or to save the life of the mother. This, imo, is the anti-abortion purity spiral.
Right. This is why rape is illegal.
Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates?
> Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another.
It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts.
> the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure.
How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion.
Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will.
> It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts.
This is, simply, factually incorrect.
> By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure.
Also factually incorrect.
> A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion.
Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth.
> Also factually incorrect.
You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense.
> Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything.
Blood and uterine tissue are not body parts?
> I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything.
The websites for the NIH, CDC, and WHO can be found on Google.
Not in any accepted usage of the term. With your tortured definition a woman is maimed every time she has a period. Please at least try to be serious. We’re talking about killing human beings, not fooling about what the best editor is.
See Ectopic Pregnancy https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9687-ectopic-...
>> I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth.
That is a really small sample to decide that it is okay for the government to interfere into the private medical decisions between it's citizens and their doctor.
>> You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense.
To accept this kind of government overreach without understanding the consequences to independently living breathing humans is unfortunate for the families and lives it will take and harm. The risk that pregnancy carries, especially in older and youngest females and those with pre-existing conditions are risk that the United States of America, of all places, should not be forcing on it's citizens. This country was once a symbol of liberty and freedom and has been losing it's way for a minute now - as most things do periodically. This time it will have long term consequences for families and communities of those not affluent enough to travel for or afford proper medical care, for which-ever choice the patient and their doctor decide is best.
- Severe maternal morbidity [1] - "unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman's health.”
- High-risk pregnancy [2] - "About 50,000 people in the U.S. experience severe pregnancy complications each year."
- Maternal Mortally [3][4]
---
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/...
[2]https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22190-high-ri...
[3]https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mo...
[4] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020... - USA version
On the other side, many of the politicians currently running for office as Republicans in my state have been dragged so deep into the anti-abortion purity spiral that they’re publicly insisting women should die rather than terminate a non-viable and life-threatening pregnancy.