In response to Kyle's abortion forum

Ok, so in quotes are Kyle's original post. The rest is my response. Enjoy and please feel free to add to the discussion...

---

"Seeing as how a fertilized egg can be shed during a woman's menstrual cycle (not all attach), you have a "whole person" being flushed down the toilet."

If that's the viewpoint that a "pro-lifer" holds - that life begins at conception - then you're right; that is true. However, the woman in this situation did not CHOOSE to flush the fertilized egg down the toilet. It happened naturally. However, the “morning after” pill (or abortion at any stage), IS a purposeful choice to terminate what COULD be construed as a life.

"Counseling is one thing. Changing the law so that women have no choice but to give birth to rapist's children, or their father's children is totally different."

I'm of the mindset on this one that two wrongs do not make a right. Revenge is bad enough - to take something out on someone who did something wrong to you is naturally what we would want to do, but it is wrong. But abortion because of a rape is worse. To be wronged and then take it out on an innocent who had no control over the situation is something that is, frankly, frustratingly selfish. Not that it is something I don’t understand – I can’t imagine the pain of having to endure rape and bearing the child of the man who did it – but I still don’t think the fetus should suffer for it.

“Just because it may be 'alive' doesn't mean it's a person. If an adult were, brain-wise, the same as a 12-week old fetus, we'd call that person brain dead and they'd be hauled off life support and the organ harvesters would start circling. Even if the person is a "person", no one has the right to hijack someone else's body for life support against that person's will.”

You’re partially right on this one. I’ll get to why I agree with that first sentence later. The rest though is not quite true. A “brain-dead” person would not be “hauled off life support”. This makes it sound as if the government or the hospital makes the decision as soon as someone is brain-dead, when, in fact, this is the decision of the family. They may keep a “brain-dead” person on life-support as long as they choose (or are willing to pay). But I think it’s better to think about it this way… If a man walked into the ICU, strolled into a “brain-dead” patient’s room and then shot and killed the “brain-dead” patient, wouldn’t that man be charged for murder? It IS technically still a life.

“If the right-to-lifers are so adamant about the sacred value of life, why is so much hate dumped on single women who have children? They should be applauded.”

I don’t think “so much hate” is dumped on single women with children. I think the fact that they eschewed the most successful manner in which to raise and nurture a child (with a loving and committed husband) is what is lamented (not hated). However, the woman’s decision to have the child and give it a chance at life is not something that is frowned upon, but IS applauded.

“Why aren't they offering women who are thinking of abortion $20k (the going rate for a surrogacy) as well as offering to pay all medical expenses, living expenses, and offering to pay for training, education, or whatnot, so the women could hope to have a good job and take care of their children themselves?”

This one is easy. If this were the case, every single mother across the country could apply for a $20k grant saying they’re thinking about abortion. Every woman looking for extra benefits and extra pay and extra education would simply have to go get pregnant (I’m sure there are plenty of men who would unknowingly oblige). There is something called personal responsibility. If you have sex, know that there’s a possibility you’ll get pregnant and that you’ll have all the challenges that come with raising a child. I think everyone who engages in sex knows this to be a possible outcome.

“Far easier to dump hate on women who can’t handle pregnancy”

I don’t know where you’re getting this “hate” stuff. Who hates them? Does showing disapproval equal hate? Does suggesting a better way mean hate? I don’t understand this.

“What of the men?”

This is a good question and one we’ve been inadequate as a country to address. Men are held responsible by courts to pay child support if it is proven that the child is their own in a court of law, but only if they agree to a DNA test. I believe it should be a law that a woman should be able to offer up the names of potential fathers (up to a certain number) and each should, by law, be forced to take a DNA test. The positive DNA test would be responsible for financial support. This would take some taxpayer money, but it would be money well spent in my opinion.

---

Ok, so after all this, you’re going to be surprised that I am pro-choice. Not in my own life though. I would never advocate that in my own personal life and I would never recommend it to a friend and I believe it to be immoral, because I DO believe that life begins at conception and I believe nothing is more vulnerable and weak and in need of protection than a fetus. I’d never want to face that judgment from God for making a decision that might have been murder. Even still, if one was not influenced by faith on this issue, there are still three ways they could think about it that still could make them reconsider their position:

• If a pregnant woman is driving at midnight and a drunk driver comes and smashes into her, killing her fetus, this guy would be made out to be a total monster, even though it was unintentional (albeit, irresponsible). However, if the woman decided that she no longer wanted the baby and intentionally killed it, it’s no big deal. Huh? So the one who consciously did it is the one who gets off the hook but the guy who did it by accident is guilty? I don’t get that.


• When someone kills a pregnant woman, it is double homicide. Pregnant women are allowed to use the carpool lane. Why are the fetuses people then, but not when it’s abortion?


• If my neighbor planted a new rosebush in his yard and one month in, after it’s showing its first green stalks and leaves, I took my lawnmower and razed his garden, I’m going to bet he’ll be pissed that I killed his roses, and I doubt I could get away with the argument that “They weren’t actually roses yet because they weren’t showing buds.” Sure they hadn’t fully matured, but it was still a rosebush, if not a fully developed one, and I killed it. Why wouldn’t the same apply to a fetus?

Constitutionally speaking, however, I’m pro-choice. I believe the argument centers around whether you believe life begins at conception (and whether a fetus without fully developed and functioning organs is a human) and if one DOES believe this, it’s a faith-driven opinion. Fortunately (I’m probably in the minority of Christians who would say “fortunately”), policy and legislation is not faith-driven and is not supported by personal beliefs, but is supported by our constitution and Bill of Rights. Scientifically speaking, an embryo is NOT a human (yet), and as much as I or any other Christian may think it already has a soul (and thus a life), this isn’t really something the courts can go on. I believe in minimal government intervention into issues of personal moral choice and I think this issue falls under this category.