by Prince Mu-Chao (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Abortion has been around, in various forms, for thousands of years. Then and now, there has always been one reason and one reason only to have an abortion: the mother does not want the child.
I'm not going to argue the fact that victims of rape or incest should be allowed abortions because only the hard-core life-over-freedom proponents want to stop those abortions. I'm not going to argue for the "dangers to mother" cases either, because one would have to be suicidal and therefore mentally deranged not to abort in that situation. Instead, I'm going to address several of the issues anti-choice advocates bring up that haven't been answered to my satisfaction by pro-choice advocates. This article is also designed to be a rebuttal to Gina's well-written article on the subject, Abortion: Civil Rights or Birth Control?.
Many anti-choice proponents declare that there are thousands of couples around the world trying to adopt children unsuccessfully. Regardless of what they say, check it out for yourself: adoption agencies are not short on children. The only reasons these couples cannot get children is because they are not qualified to adopt, in the agency's eyes, or they are picky and only want a child of a certain age, gender or race. Apparently, they don't want a child that bad if they will only take a white baby boy and turn down a 3 year old black girl.
To proceed, let me ask one of the most amusing questions associated with this whole issue: when does life start? Well, I'm going to stay away from medical reasoning because you've heard it all before and I'm not interested in putting you to sleep. The question should not be "when does life start?" at all, but "what qualifies as being human?". The law allows us to end life whenever we want after applying for a hunting permit. Most descriptions I've heard of a human being include emotion, communication and thought. I would argue that a fetus has none of these traits, while a baby has two, possibly three of them.
Besides the fact that adoption agencies have plenty of children, there is another reason the mother should not be restricted from having an abortion. She should not be forced to carry an unwanted child for nine months, then go through painful labor. Let me think up a little test... hmmm... what if some stranger came up to you while you were telling a friend about the condom breaking the night before. He gives you a ten pound bowling ball, and tells you that you have to carry it around for nine months everywhere you go. After the nine months are over, he plans to beat you up and take it back leaving you with nothing but the scars. You have to agree, or else this person will die in his sleep. Volunteers - hands please?
Anti-choice proponents also tend to use the argument that abortion is used as birth control but I have trouble believing this. Who would rather have a tube shoved up one of their orifices than force a sexual partner to wear a "little rubber thingy?" Or take a harmless pill every day? Or even subject themselves to a single shot in the butt four times a year? Not a majority of the women who have abortions, I'll wager. I've also heard that the government pays for abortions. Well, they may pay for some abortions, but what about the welfare those unwanted children would suck up? I don't have statistics to back up my opinion on this, but compare a one-time cost of $400 for an abortion to eighteen years of living expenses and that's statistical enough.
If the mother doesn't want a child, what kind of life does the baby in question have to look forward to? We see examples of what that life is to become on the evening news every day. It's hard enough for children to grow up normal in this society, so why subject them to the child abuse, psychological problems and possible incarceration their unwanted life will likely take? Conversely, why make society the victim of this victim? This country is chock-full of unwanted, unloved individuals. If you donít believe me, donate some time at your local homeless shelter.
Finally, I find it interesting that most anti-choice proponents also support the death penalty. Not all, I know, but many. On the one hand it seems a bit hypocritical. When you look at it more closely, though, it makes perfect sense. These people are interested in controlling peopleís lives--some "people" deserve to live, others deserve to die, and the government decides.
This article was obviously driven by opinion as opposed to cold hard facts. I realize that and hope you allow for it. Regardless, I think that my points are valid. I put much thought into my opinions on this subject, doubly so since I am a man and I would be supporting or defying legislation that could never effect me first-hand now that I've already been born. It all comes down to this: who has the right -- the American citizen or the questionably human quasi-life?
If you would like to see a follow-up to this article, go to Abortion Thoughts written by The Liberator.
Click here to return to our Articles: liberator.net.