The Seven Reasons I am Pro-choice

The Seven Reasons I am Pro-choice​

by,​

Jonathan Dedering​

1. Without legal abortions a black-market will be created. Back alley abortions will kill many women.

2. Countless women will die giving birth to babies, which for their health, should have been aborted.

3. The parents of the aborted fetuses undoubtedly value the fetus more than any sectarian evangelical.

4. The United States was created to give choices to the individual without government intervention.

5. Church and state have remained and must remain separate.

6. Children deserve an upbringing in a household were they can be loved.

7. For the safety of both the fetus and the mother.


www.savewisconsin.org

 

I agree with you except for #3. I don't knwo what you're getting at there. BUt shouldn't there be regulations? for example, how is it right to let a girl haev 3-4 abortions just because she's too lazy to get on birth control. Or why not get the government more organized in adoption. that solves all the problems except the health reasons and no baby has to die.

I bring up the Scott Perterson case again just because I can't get it off my mind. He was charged with murdering a baby that was not born yet. but mothers can do that to their own baby because it's not wanted? and some of those babies could be wanted by others so why is it right.

I think abortions can be a life saver but there should be some sort of regulation on it. I don't know how they'd do that with out interfereing in personal lives though. That's not good either.

I'm on both ends of an arguement like this. But not for religious reasons. I have my own morals.

 

This tiresome mantra has no basis in fact. See:



http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html



and



http://www.ortl.org/life_in_oregon/00_12/back_alley.html

An exception could be made to allow abortions when necessary to save the mother's life, though such cases account for a small fraction (~5%) of all abortions performed annually in the US.

And they demonstrate this by having them cut to pieces?

Is murder strictly a private religious matter?

There is no shortage of such households available to adopt unwanted newborns.

Unborn babies must be killed for their own safety?!

As for mothers, see:

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/category/5/144/26/30/0/

 

Then why is it that couples wait for years at a time to adopt simply because of paperwork problems? and why are many babies left in the system, shuffled from foster home to another for years?

Not to mention, a NEWBORN is not a FETUS. There is a difference. I don't care what anyone says, having an abortion within the first trimester is not killing a baby. It's not a baby! It doesn't even look like a baby! It looks like a frog or a chicken embryo...

I'm not against abortion, even in repeat cases, because if a woman is irresponsible enough to get pregnant three or four times, do we want her to be forced to care for herself during pregnancy? She won't. She'll do what she wants and have children that are plagued with health problems. And even if she puts the child up for adoption, it won't be adopted because no one wants to deal with children who have such severe problems.

As long as a woman can pay for the abortion (no state funding) and its within the first trimester, it should be allowed.

All these bleeding-heart arguments in favour of adoption just don't cut it. These are almost always the same people against welfare or state aid, and yet those women that they would impose full-term pregnancy on would in most cases end up on state aid. Trust me, I know. I am the child of one of these women. She wasn't forced to have me by any law but by the victorian, christian value system under which she lived and still lives today.

I would much rather my mother have made a decision on her own than forced to do something that maybe she didn't want nor have the backing to do.

Holly

 

It may not be a baby but it is a human. Will you deny that?

 

not going there...
Holly

 

why not?

 

Couples often wait for years because there are more adoptive homes than newborns available for adoption. It's a simple matter of supply and demand.

These are not babies, but older kids who've been removed from their homes. Unfortunately, child welfare agencies waste far too much time trying to rehabilitate unfit parents and reunite them with their traumatized kids. Here in Oregon, a child was recently killed after being returned to abusive biological parents.

Look again:

http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/pictures.html

In other words, you wish you'd been killed?

 

Not touchin this one, not with a ten-foot pole. *backs away slowly*

 

I'm not againt welfare or state aid.

I'm against women being too stupid or lazy to protect themselves and another soul has to pay for her mistake. Maybe it's not a "baby" but it is human and has a soul. I'm against women that CAN'T pay for abortion and get a few done a few times a year. YOu know who ends up paying that? ME. A fucking taxpayer. I'm against women that don't even bother to look into adoption.

I totally understand your arguements and like I said, I'm totally pro choice. But I just hate the people who abuse this right. It's so sad. It causes guilt. It could be harmful in the fact that it can slim your chances of getting pregnant when you want to be. I just think that if women were more careful about birth control than we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

 

So instead you would be paying for her

• health care during pregnancy
• childbirth costs
• baby formula
• pediatric visits and medication
• diapers
• baby food
• child care
• Day Care (one week of which is more expensive than an abortion)
• Head Start programs
• AFDC
• Social workers, when problems start to arise from raising a child the mother didn't want
• Law inforcement from same issue
• Incarceration

Ect ect

Birth control is NEVER 100%. Even people who use BC still often get pregnant without wanting to. I, personally, have always accepted my surprise pregnancies, but not everyone does.

 

I'm not sure she wanted to draw attention to the quantitative difference but the qualitative one. Being forced to pay for a child to live is quite a different thing than is paying for a child to be killed.

 

Huck Finn,

I stand by all that was said.

#1 Until Roe v. Wade abortions were commonly performed in bathtubs.
#2 Does not seem to be disputed. But I would question your sources.
#3 It is the parents child; they are resposible for it. I would recommend adoption, but in a free country parents are allowed to weigh both sides of an issue. I just do not feel that anyone driven by a religious doctrine has the right to take that away.
#4 and #5 Is a legal first trimester abortion murder? -Not to say I beleive it is ok, but that if something unexpected happened I would like to know the option is there.
#6 I agree adoption would be best. But children deserve to be raised by their own parents. -They do not deserved to be aborted either but it is not my right to block the option.
#7 If my child was diagnosed with a cripling disease I would consider abortion. Depending on the circumstances of course.

To clarify things, I would never abort a child of mine unless absolutely necessary. I do feel the option must remain open because unimaginable circumstance do occur and I beleive we must all think very long and very hard about that. I know someone who had an abortion and witnessed the psychological trauma it caused her. I would not wish it upon anyone.

-Jonathan Dedering

 

i really dont understand why people consistantly use the argument that abortions should be legal because they'll happen anyways. SO WHAT?! If we use that logic almost every illegal act should be made legal so its safe.

There are better arguments for why abortion should be legal like the mother's safety. Why people fall back on this excuse is beyond me.

 

Because the thought to abort is driven by fear not by want.

 

Yes, and no one NEEDS to rob a store, rape someone or steal a car. Abortions have been happening for millenia, they used to be just between a womyn and her midwife, the ancient Egyptions performed them, as did every other ancient society. Being pregnant against one's health, or financial or mental ability is not the same as wanting to commit a crime such as robbery or rape. NO ONE wants an abortion. In some circumstances, it is, however, what the womyn who is pregnant feels needs to be done, for her own good.

No one should argue with that.

 

What evidence do you have for this, let alone the claim that women were dying in droves? Try actually dealing with the evidence I've provided, instead of just ignoring it.

See http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html.

I was disputing your ludicrous claim that it is possible to "value" children by having them killed.

Yes.

In other words, your concern for kids is trumped by your support for the "right" to kill?

C. Everett Koop devoted his entire career to caring for such kids that would've otherwise been aborted, and he never knew any of them to later say they regretted being allowed to live.

All your lame arguments above have merely defaulted to the standard pro-choice defense of the "right" to kill one's unborn offspring. I don't expect to change your mind about this, but don't try to sell abortion as a social panacea.

 

What if a man who can't find work decides he must rob a bank to feed his family? Are crimes justified by ostensibly noble motives?

 

Abortion isn't a crime, the two aren't comparable.

 

It is clearly a violent act of killing; its legality doesn't change this.