Abortion is one of the most hotly contested issues in our political system.
Since this blog is still relatively new, it makes sense to lay out a great deal of our ideology and beliefs, and even though abortion debates can make people angry, we’re not going to shy away from expressing our (or at least my) opinions.
What follows will be my opinions on the legality of abortion in the cases of incest, rape, and the endangerment of the mother, and one other case, which, due to its difficulty to express in few words, will be discussed shortly.
I will not discuss my opinions on the legality of abortion in extreme cases as birth control; I find this to be somewhat morally objectionable, but I will refrain from legality talk on this because government should not legislate on morality. I will discuss my opinions on the morality of this, if the question arises in the comments, but legality will remain untouched.
Onto the main argument. Abortion in cases where incest, rape, or the endangerment of the mother is involved, should by all means be legal. It simply does not make sense for citizens to be forced to live with negative circumstances, or circumstances with negative consequences, when the circumstances or the consequences of the circumstances are entirely avoidable. If a child is conceived due to rape or incest, and the child is not wanted, the mother should not be required by law to go through an enormously painful birthing process, and then go through a further adoption process, simply to accomplish something that could have been accomplished much sooner, with a fraction of the time, hurt, and cost.
I could invoke overpopulation arguments, arguments about children of incestuous relationships being far more prone to genetic defects, arguments about the children of rapists, but I do not find this necessary. Only the very basic argument is needed to make a very effective point; a woman who has conceived under unwanted or harmful circumstances should not, under any circumstances, be legally required to give birth to a child conceived under said circumstances.
Endangerment of the mother is another case entirely. I’m not below using anecdotes, as they can effectively prove a point to some that would otherwise ignore opposing arguments. I gave you fair warning, so here’s one:
Imagine a young mother. She’s twenty-seven years old, still young, still full of life. Her name is Amelia. This mother has a ten year old daughter. Tragically, Amelia develops cancer, which metastasizes in her brain, lungs, and breast. However, there is some hope – this cancer is treatable. The doctors who diagnose this cancer are ready to treat her – but there’s a snag – Amelia is currently pregnant, and to treat the cancer would require termination of the fetus. Amelia lives in a country where abortion is illegal in all cases, and thus the cancer, the treatable cancer, must be left to ravage her body, because saving Amelia’s life is effectively illegal.
This is no run-of-the-mill story, something cooked up in an attempt to convince holdouts – this actually happened. Amelia lives in Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal in all cases.
Despite petitions from numerous websites and organizations, the mother’s case was ignored, and Amelia will die, possibly even before the baby is born, because in Nicaragua, the life of an unborn fetus is valued over the life of a twenty-seven year old mother, her ten year old daughter, her husband, her family, her friends.
Should we allow this to happen? Is it responsible to let families be torn apart because it’s illegal for a mother to seek treatment for a curable illness?
Note that I am not saying this happens in every case; however, to ban every case of abortion catches every single occurrence of similar cases.
Earlier, I mentioned one case that was difficult to express in few words, but I’ll do so here. First, it’s best for this article to be read.
The case is that where the fetus is aborted because the fetus would otherwise be severely disabled to the point of total disability, in cases where the fetus would have an extraordinarily debilitating defect, or in cases where the fetus would have a zero chance of survival.
In the posted article, the writer’s unborn child had a zero chance of survival, due to a congenital defect, and writer and his wife choose to abort early, rather than go through the (especially for them) painful process of stillbirth and burial.
In what can only be described as adding needless insult to incredible injury, the couple are attacked by a pro-life group calling them “murderers” and “baby-killers”, the sort of juvenile nonsense that one might expect on the school yard. These advocates for life, the self-proclaimed saviors of the children, are shamelessly insulting women at the most difficult points in their lives, for the purposes of what? Feeling better about themselves?
I’m not one to criticize free speech, but when people are allowed to attack others for life-changing, necessary decisions, we’re going too far. Insensitivity is blatant and widespread. To borrow from the video the author posted, what these people are doing is despicable, it is completely uncalled for, and it is nearly criminal.
Abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, endangerment of the mother, and in cases like that of the video above. To ban it in all cases is insensitive, needlessly painful, and utterly nonsensical – should the government be able to impose a flat ban that causes unnecessary, preventable harm?
Absolutely not. #