We're dealing with human life.
This is an entirely different argument based on the definition of "What is a human being". If women are going to have an abortion, they are going to have an abortion. Whether it be in a clinic, with a coat hanger, an egg beater, over dosing on vitamin C, or by throwing themselves down a flight of stairs. It's going to happen one way or another. Either way, the baby will die. I think the option of having an abortion in a safe way should be available for those who want it.
I don't think Pro-Life and forcing people who shouldn't be parents is a good idea. If the US bans abortion outright, it won't go over very well. Romania once outlawed all kinds of birth control, and it was a complete disaster. The population exploded, and mortality rates went through the roof. There wasn't enough food to feed everyone, people were dying because of lack of medical care, crime blew through the roof, poverty drastically increased because there wasn't enough jobs or money to support the sudden population boom, orphanages were absolutely overflowing, and rampant with horrific abuse.
Be careful for what you wish for.
en.wikipedia.org
Well, that's pretty much how social services operate in the foster care scene.
A whole lotta good that's doing. Adoption rates are up and down. It's expensive and over priced to adopt. It can go as high as 50 thousand dollars depending on what state you live in.
Statistics about declining adoption numbers might have some shock value — but they may not tell the whole story. Learn the truth about U.S. adoption rates.
consideringadoption.com
Bottom line is it seems like pro-choice people generally view people as "animals to control" rather than sacred life from conception.
Again that's a "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Do you have objective evidence to prove that claim and the other you made before it?
en.wikipedia.org
For instance, if there's more people than food, than people die.
That's how nature works. It's an objective fact that if you don't eat, you drop dead.
Well, I think if people take life as sacred, perhaps people will take sex as something that's not a joke.
Not everyone treats it as a joke. A part of the issue is that classes in middle and high schools such as Sex ED doesn't always help. It can depend on where you're from (class especially, but also geography) - in most cases, parents just don't say anything to their kids, the school 'courses' are usually useless and the kids learn nothing. So sheltering your kids can bite you in the ass in the end. Teens get exposed to sex through porn without an understanding of what a condom or birth control is or even how to mentally and emotionally deal with a pregnancy. We hear people all of the time saying "educate your kids on sex" and most religious parents don't do it and then they blame their pregnant teen daughter or her boyfriend when it's their fault for trying to force abstinence. Most teenagers don't practice abstinence. A responsible parent encourages the condom or gets their daughter on the shot or an IUD.
However, you know though, people think Christianity is a joke these days and the strong Catholic stance against birth control isn't helping.
Christianity is a poor argument in the abortion debates. I'm one of those people who is not only an Atheist but also very Anti-Theist having been a former Monotheist / Christian back in the early 2000's and raised Baptist by strict parents.
I honestly don't think you can be Pro-Life and be a Christian at the same time. That's hypocritical for any Christian to announce Pro Life when:
- The Christian Patron Deity itself as stated in the Bible allowed it's followers to murder and kill pregnant women for not worshiping it or adhering to it's rules. There goes your religious debate on abortion.
- Dash new born babies on rocks.
- If a man injured a woman who was pregnant, that man was only charged with injuring her and had to answer to the husband. Nothing is said about the pregnancy itself.
- The Biblical God taught Moses how to do an abortion by forcing unfaithful women to drink a tonic that caused miscarriages.
- It is stated that If a woman got knocked up by her rapist, she was forced to marry him.
- God murdered forty two boys in a horrific fashion using bears to rip them to shreds for dissing a bald man.
- Parents are allowed to murder their children if they became disrespectful or rejected the religion itself.
- This deity committed genocide with a world wide flood. That means drowning a whole lot of children, newborn babies, pregnant and non pregnant women, and men.
- The Christian deity made women barren or sterile if they angered him.
- The bible states in it's passages that women are inferior and are therefor servants to mankind according to 1 Timothy 2:12 and Genesis 3:16. That's misogamy.
- The Christian deity doesn't view the fetus or unborn baby as a human being until it takes it's first breath as stated in the book of Genesis.
- It is demonstrated in the bible that the biblical deity doesn't care about miscarriages.
- God allowed 2 women to cannibalize their children in 2 Kings 6:24-30 because they were starving.
Here are the following scriptures that I named off:
Genesis 2:7
Genesis 2:21
Exodus 21:22-25
1 Samuel 15:3
Numbers 5: 11-31
Deuteronomy 28:18-24
Deuteronomy 22: 25-27
2 Kings 8:12
2 Kings 15:16
2 Kings 2: 23-25
2 Kings 6: 24-30
Isiah 13:18
Hosea 9:10-16
Hosea 13:16
Mark 13:12
My point is, the Bible is not Pro-Life. There's so many many scriptures on genocide, misogamy and the abuse of women, rape, torture, the murder of women and children, murder of new born babies, slavery, homophobia, biblical threats of genocide in Revelations on anyone who isn't a Christian, etc. So no, this is not a moral religion in my honest opinion. I don't think there's anything that's good about it or factual that compels me to be re-indoctrinated. The First Council of Nicea in AD 325 laid down the dogma and first bible. But even after that, there were disputes and changes.
Personally I don't buy into the religious / abortion debate because there's no objective or empirical evidence proving the existence of Jesus or a deity. No amount of science has been able to prove that any deities existed at all. There's an absence of evidence. So I dismiss that argument because the Burden of Proof for the existence of any deity needs to be proven first.
I'm generally not open to exceptions for rape and incest, though I have the deepest sympathy for the victims.
In my honest opinion I don't think little girls who were molested, raped, and got pregnant as a result should not be forced to have babies they don't want. That's immoral and abusive.
Anyway, the bottom line is that pro-choice doesn't respect an embryos life and they want no-restriction abortion across the table.
Claim and No True Scotsman Fallacy.
I'm pro choice and I'm a father of 2 children. The thing is, I wanted those kids. So my experience proves you wrong. When you make a claim you automatically accept The Burden of Proof and it's your responsibility to prove it. Other wise, everyone can dismiss your claims because you show an unwillingness to provide objective evidence for your arguments.
www.law.cornell.edu
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
People wanting illegal abortions in the case of illegal abortion always had the option of adoption.
Claim. Abortion cuts down on the amount of "illegal" abortions that take place. Not everything is 100 percent effective. In the 1950's and 1960's there were many women conducing unsafe abortions or committing suicide so they weren't forced to have a baby they didn't want and that was because abortion was illegal.
In the years leading up to that landmark decision, a patchwork of state laws made abortion legal in some places and illegal in others, based on life-threatening circumstances, incest, or rape. While, in 1970, a woman in Washington could obtain an elective abortion legally, a Kentucky woman could not. Does this mean abortions weren’t performed in Kentucky? Or Texas? Or Alabama? After all, before 1967, the procedure was basically a crime in every state, yet
estimates of abortions in the 1950s and ’60s range from 200,000 to 2 million each year. The women who sought underground abortions during this time period often faced painful, and sometimes deadly, consequences.
In 1961, the word “abortion” was an unpalatable one to much of the public. Nevertheless, it appeared in bold print on the cover of this magazine, which called it “a widespread social evil.” In the feature story, John Bartlow Martin investigated women who had abortions as well as the “abortionists” who performed them. He found that women who sought out abortions were sometimes poor, desperate, and single, while others were wealthy and married. What connected them was a willingness to break the law in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. What separated them was their means to do it safely.
The women who sought underground abortions during the postwar years faced sexual assault, excruciating pain, and sometimes death. In 1961, The Saturday Evening Post revealed the awful realities of illegal abortion.
www.saturdayeveningpost.com
Abortions have saved the lives of countless women whose pregnancies had life threatening complications. Here's the empirical evidence.
Each year, 4.7–13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion
(3). In developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100 000 unsafe abortions. In developing regions, that number rises to 220 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions
(2). Estimates from 2012 indicate that in developing countries alone, 7 million women per year were treated in hospital facilities for complications of unsafe abortion
(4).
Physical health risks associated with unsafe abortion include:
- incomplete abortion (failure to remove or expel all pregnancy tissue from the uterus);
- haemorrhage (heavy bleeding);
- infection;
- uterine perforation (caused when the uterus is pierced by a sharp object); and
- damage to the genital tract and internal organs as a consequence of inserting dangerous objects into the vagina or anus.
Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources
(5, 6).
Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion
(8). Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion
(6, 7).
Fact sheet on abortion: scope of the problem, consequences of inaccessible quality abortion care, expanding quality abortion care, and WHO action.
www.who.int
