59,902,500
Everybody knows the story of Nazi Germany,
The countless lives they took, a great horror unforeseen.
Innocent blood was spilt all over the land,
And we saw the horror, and thankfully, lent a hand.
All around the world, people fought to protect life,
To save those who could not save themselves, is there any greater sacrifice?
I believe there is an agreement that what the Nazi's did was evil, wouldn't you say?
But would you believe me if I told you, that the same thing the Nazi's did, still happens today?
In fact, it's happening right here and now beneath your feet,
A monster in sheep's clothing, who stays very discrete.
Who tells you, "It's my choice, let me do what I need,"
"I'll decide what to do with my life, who are you to tell me?"
Now I'll ask you, is it ever okay to kill an innocent human being?
Is there any good reason that could justify it completely?
"It's not alive, it's just a clump of cells," is that what you really believe?
That taking innocent life when it is small yet so unique
is really okay because it cannot yet breathe?
I haven't yet said it, but I hope you understand,
that it's unborn babies that I'm trying to defend.
Since they are the most helpless of creatures in the land,
Does this make it okay to to take their life, just because we can?
Now, I don't care if you're black, white, or latino, I don't even care if you're gay, straight, or like smoking tobacco. I don't care if your a christian or an atheist, a republican a democrat, a patriot, Jewish or Muslim, man or women, whatever it is. The most important human right is the right to life and no matter how big you are, how small you are, how fast you are or how smart you are, we all deserve the right to live. To have a chance. And the moment we start to dehumanize certain groups and look at others as beneath ourselves and think it's acceptable to take their lives, are we any different than the Nazi's?
*59,902,500 babies have been aborted since the 1971 court decision of Roe vs. Wade.
I don't hate you if you disagree with me. I believe this to be the most important issue of our time and I'd actually be really happy to have a good discussion with anyone that wanted to.
I respect you for sharing this opinion and I do understand your side of things, but it's different looking at it as a male rather than a female. A woman should be allowed to make choices regarding her own body, especially if she isn't able to care for a baby and give it a good environment to grow up in. Honestly, having this "clump of cells", as it was referred to as in your article, removed can be better for the life of the would-be child. Also, when I first started reading this article I thought it was going to be about how muslims are being put in concentration camps, which is much more Nazi-like than abortion. It was pretty well written though, and the use of pathos would work very well on some people, especially if they shared your views. :)
ReplyDeleteJulia I acknowledge what you are saying. But actions have consequences. If someone is incapable of raising a child, they have no business putting themselves in a situation that a child would be created. Anthony, I though you chose a widely overlooked topic and made great points. The connection to Nazi Germany was well made and accurate. 53 million more babies have been killed by abortion than Jewish people by Nazi Germany. Julia to go back to your point of an improper place for a child to grow up, a mother has the option of putting the child up for adoption if the environment or parents aren't ready to raise a child. Women don't get pregnant on their own, so the man is equally as responsible as the women. The man should never walk away when a woman gets pregnant and he is responsible, if he chooses to walk away that's a shame and he is not accepting the consequences of his actions. Julia I respect your view and opinion but respectfully disagree.
DeleteAnthony - I like how you structured the poem and subtly lead into your point. I loved your paragraph where you proclaimed that it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, and what you believe. You call for the voice for the voiceless. You call for protection for them. This issue is really an equality issue. Equal rights for all. All humans deserve them regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. But we have forgotten age. We withhold the most basic human right that is life from these unborn children. Your ending was great with the statement that you are more than willing to talk about it with anyone. That's very important that we are willing to do that. Change only happens when the issue is acknowledged and there is understanding on both sides of the problem. The one question I believe will show everyone what they really believe is: Would I not have a problem if my parents chose to abort me? Would that not upset me? - Cause I know I value my life and would be infuriated if I never got a chance to live it. Thank you Anthony for presenting this topic.
While I do understand your point Austen, sometimes children are made by mistake. Protection does not always work and it could be an accident. Also, sometimes babies are made because a woman was raped. I know that's a dark concept to be discussing on a school blog post, but there are many circumstances that can lead to a child being brought into this world. If a woman knows she can not raise the child properly, wouldn't it be better for the fetus to be removed before it is brought into the world?
DeleteThank your for responding and being willing to have this conversation. While, yes sometimes children are not intentionally made, they are still made anyway. Contraceptives are never 100 percent, only abstinence is. If the parents are not ready to have a child, there is adoption. There are many people out there who would take the opportunity to adopt a child, especially an infant. So, there is another option besides taking its life. Rape is a heinous and disgusting crime. When this relates to abortion, 1 percent of abortions are rape related. Rape is evil, but so is killing an unborn child. And killing a human is classified as murder. To address the question that is your last sentence, it would not be better for the child to be killed because the mother can't raise the baby properly. First, it should not just we her raising the baby, as I stated in my previous comment, the man is equally responsible and should take responsibility. Second, adoption is in place for children who's parents cannot take care of them at all or adequately. Adoption is a really good option, especially because 62% percent of domestic babies get adopted within a month of birth. A part of abortion that is heavily undermined and ignored in the emotional affect of the parents of the child who was aborted. Intense guilt can last for years and grief as well. Its not like the parents are cheerful about the killing of their child and the weight of the decision they just made. Metal health is quietly swept under the rug.
DeleteI appreciate both of you sharing your opinions and I think in regards to this topic it comes down to this. When does human life begin? That is really the only question that matters because I think that we all agree that the taking of innocent human life is wrong. So, it comes down to if you believe a baby in the womb is alive or not.
ReplyDeletePersonally I disagree with your analogy between what the Nazis did to the jews vs. abortion. I myself come from a very Jewish family on one side, and very catholic on the other so I get to experience both religions. What happened during the Holocaust was beyond horrible. Personally I see no relation between this and abortion. The people who were killed during the Holocaust could live, breathe, see, and experience pain all on their own. They had to under go this torture for days, weeks, months, and some even years. If you look it up the earliest babies in the womb can truly feel pain is 20 weeks. This is why most states have laws on the amount of time a woman has to get an abortion. A woman having an abortion in my opinion is nowhere near as similar to starving, beating, and overworking a living, breathing, human being who has their own personality and can survive without being attached to another human being. Depending on peoples opinion some view abortion as murder. Personally I do not, but for those who do I can't understand how that is anywhere similar to the Holocaust. Also the number comparison between the amount of abortions and the amount killed in the Holocaust, is of course going to be drastic. You gave the number of abortions in the span of 49 years, vs. the 12 years concentration camps were open. This is an unfair comparison.
DeleteAnthony I couldn't agree with you more on this topic and I also agree that it is the most important topic in our time. For a culture that relies so heavily on science to say that a baby in the womb isn't a human being but a "clump of cells" is preposterous to me. I think the science backs up that it is a human being. When I read that number it shows me how overlooked this is and how I haven't done enough for those innocent babies aborted that is nearing 60 million. I like how you brought in the analogy of Nazi Germany. Everyone is horrified at the fact that 6 million Jews were murdered, but some people won't even blink an eye at the fact that 60 million babies have been murdered. I am really glad you have brought up this topic and I would also have a conversation about it if you or anyone else would want to.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your point Julia, yes it is true that not all pregnancies are planned, however, to begin, less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape which makes it an extreme minority. However, even in those cases, should the baby have to pay for the crimes of the Father? Is the child's life less valuable just because it was conceived in rape? I would argue that it is just as valuable. Again I respect your own opinion and would just ask your specific opinion just to understand where you are coming from. Should abortion be allowed always or sometimes not and if sometimes not then what cases do you believe it is/isn't okay. Totally fine if you don't want to but to have a discussion i believe it is important to understand someones specific viewpoints so we could possibly find some common ground. Glad we could have a discussion about this
ReplyDeleteI'm also glad we could have a discussion. I do feel that the life of the baby is important, whether in or outside of the womb and no, I don't think the baby should pay for the sins of the father but the mother may be traumatized by the event for the rest of her life. Don't you think she would despise the baby, even if it is an unconscious feeling? I just feel that the life a child will have outside of the womb is a more important part of the decision. Children deserve to be loved and accepted and raised in a safe, healthy environment. If a woman or man can't provide that, wouldn't it be better for the child to not be brought into a bad environment? And for the record, I do think that it would be more ethical for a woman to carry the baby and then give it up for adoption after it is born, but pregnancy changes a woman's life both in everyday circumstances and financially. Please do understand that I don't have a lot of knowledge on this topic, so I'm open to listening to you and your viewpoints as well.
DeleteJulia I agree that the woman may despise the child because of the father in a rape situation, that is why adoption is a really good option. I agree that every child deserves to be a safe and healthy environment, that is why I advocate adoption. I have a friend who was adopted from birth and she is living a safe, happy, healthy life. She is a very joyful girl and loves life. I agree that children should not be in a bad environment if it is possible to avoid, that is why adoption is such a crucial part of this discussion. Pregnancy does have expenses and changes circumstances, but if an abortion to used to get rid of a pregnancy that is seen as an inconvenience than that is appalling. End a life because someone doesn't feel like handling it the right way? In my opinion, if someone does that, it is very disturbing and horrid. Again, thank you for having this conversation, if you have additional questions or statements please comment back.
DeleteI appreciate your honesty and openness to learn it's something that many do not have. This is how I would respond to your point. I agree that yes, what a women has to go through after being raped is a really terrible awful thing that no one should have to go through. However, I don't think that assuming the child will have a bad upbringing is really fair. How do we know what that child will experience. While it is true that it may be a bad experience, does that mean we shouldn't even give that child a chance? Adoption is also a incredible choice that is there for people in situations like this. I would also ask, why do you think adoption is more ethical then abortion? This might help you understand more about your opinion. I would also ask, do you think abortion is only okay in cases of rape or is it okay in all other circumstances as well? Again I just want to better understand your own beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how we cannot assume a child will have a bad life. The only people who can decide that are the mother and father of this child. None of us know what goes behind closed doors, and this is why many people advocate for pro-choice. I feel like there is a common misconception that people who are pro-life have about those who are pro-choice. They can sometimes think that people who are pro-choice believe that anyone who gets pregnant before they are ready should have an abortion. This is not the case. Those who are pro-choice just believe in having the choice. Adoption is a good choice to, but for those who are raped having to give birth can be just as traumatizing. A women should not have to have a baby because she was raped. She did not consent to it, so others who made the point that those who get pregnant have to deal with the consequences how is that fair to the women who are raped. Pregnancy and birth is one of the hardest and most painful things a female can experience in life. It can take working families up to 3 years to pay off the hospital bills after having a baby. A 15 year old girl cannot afford that, a college student cannot afford that. I respect your opinion but I feel as though it can be insensitive to say that "only 1% of abortions are from rape". Many women do not come forward about being raped, so this percentage can be much higher. Also saying 1% makes it seem like a few people when it is actually in the thousands. Opinions aside, thank you for letting us all share our side on this.
DeleteI really like how you took the time to acknowledge misconceptions people have and I respect your opinion on instances of rape because it is just a terrible situation and I completely understand why you believe what you believe because giving birth after rape must be a really difficult experience for so many. Personally, I just don't believe that the child should have to pay for the father's crime and that child's life who was conceived in rape is just as valuable as all others. Again I appreciate you being very respectful and I completely understand where you are coming from.
DeleteBy bad childhood, I wasn't specifically referring to after a woman was raped, more so just in general. Having a bad childhood can result in many problems down the road. I believe woman who choose to have a child should be able to care for it and if not they should not take care of it. I find adoption more ethical because it wouldn't be killing the fetus, it would be giving the child a chance at having a loving family rather than staying with a mother that didn't want it in the first place. I think abortion should be available to anyone who wants one, because I have said, a woman should have control of her body. It shouldn't be anyone's decision but her own. She will be the one carrying the baby and having to care for it and if she doesn't want to do that, she shouldn't have to. I think everyone should have the choice, especially since getting the fetus removed doesn't effect anyone other than who has to get it removed.
ReplyDeleteWow - first, Anthony - thank you for taking on the challenge of writing a poem and for making it a really powerful one. Second, I am proud of all of you who commented because you are having an educated discussion in a mature way. This is what we aim for in school, regardless of the topic, we want you to feel comfortable discussing major or minor issues and doing so in a way that helps us all learn and grow.
ReplyDeleteOkay so here's my point I want to make now that I understand your view. I have gathered that you believe that any women should have the right to an abortion whatever the reason may be but that options like adoption are more ethical. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I think that is what you are saying. Next, you said that adoption is more ethical than abortion because adoption does not kill the fetus and to that I agree. However, by saying that abortion kills a fetus(which it does), that would imply that the fetus is alive right? This makes the fetus a human life just like any other. So, based on what you have said, a fetus is a living person but it is okay to kill it and that just doesn't make sense to me. I think that the only way abortion would be okay is if you could prove that a fetus is not alive in which case abortion would not be killing it. However, I think we agree that a fetus is alive and I also think that we would agree that it is never ago to kill another innocent human being. If I've misrepresented your views at all please correct me but I hope that by laying it out like that, you see that abortion is wrong. No reason can justify the taking of another innocent human life. So it comes down to this, do you think that the fetus is a living human being?
ReplyDeleteThe Holocaust leaves really big shoes to fill, and I’m not entirely sure if this is an appropriate analogy. You’re comparing the systematic isolation and murder of ethnic and minority groups in terrible conditions to a choice a woman makes for her future. I see why you chose it but I don’t think comparing mass genocide to abortion is an accurate representation for this.
ReplyDeleteA woman may want to choose because of their capability to support a child, economic state, or overall preparedness for the responsibility. Abortion is not done on a whim, and sometimes it is necessary due to health complications that may follow a birth. However, I agree that there is a certain point in the pregnancy where that “clump of cells” is far too human to be classified as an extraction rather than murder.
I admire you for taking on this topic. I really appreciate this open discussion and I would be interested to know what you think of procedures like tubal ligations and vasectomies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous - I agree that some times the reason for abortion is unpreparedness. That is why adoption is so important. There are other people out there in the adoption process that have the means to care for that child. To your Holocaust point, I think Anthony was aiming more to the taking of innocent lives not concentration camps. Abortion is mass genocide, there really isn't anyway around that. I mean 59 million lives lost. That's an obscene number. I like that you brought in vasectomies and tubal ligations. Those procedures are preventative. No one is being killed. Pregnancy is being prevented. Those procedures are perfectly fine. (Deleted comment because of error)
DeleteMost abortions are done within the first trimester of pregnancy, which is the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. It is an embryo until week eight, after week 8 that is when it becomes a fetus. Most abortions occur before the 13 week of pregnancy, so a majority of abortions occur before the fetus is even a fetus, it would still be an embryo. Most women get an abortion or schedule one once they start showing symptoms of being pregnant, like missing a period, about 4-6 weeks into the pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteWomen put a lot of thought into this decision, so they should. It may also take a little while until an appointment can be made. Still, many women try to get an abortion as soon as possible, so it can be inferred many abortions occur before the eighth week mark, though it may be a couple weeks after due to they complexity of the decision. Abortions can be done through the 24th week of pregnancy, but only in special circumstances and that may be because after the 13th week it needs to be a procedure rather than an abortion pill. Also, some women may not realize they are pregnant.
Some states require abortions be done before the 6th week of pregnancy, which is an absurd request. That might mean their period is only a week or two late and then they wouldn't be able to get an abortion. So if a woman doesn't realize they are pregnant or wants to put a lot of thought into the decision they might not be able to get an abortion before the 10th week. 24 weeks is a long time, but that means the fetus could only have been alive for 14 weeks, and if the decision was made as carefully as it should have, it is most likely the best option for the fetus to be removed.
Also, 33 states require women receive counseling before they can get an abortion. 12 of these states make it mandatory to have the counseling in person and 25 of these states require a waiting period, usually 24 hours but can be more than 72 hours depending on the state, after counseling before the decision can be made. This is more time making the abortion more delayed than it would have been in the first place. This also can force women to have to make at least two trips to a health care provider, which can be difficult for some women to do.
I believe if a women chooses to have an abortion, it was a carefully thought out decision that is the best thing for the fetus/embryo and the woman having the abortion. Wouldn't it be just as unethical, if not more so, to bring a child into the world knowing it wouldn't be cared for properly or not have a good life?
btw sorry this was really long lol
DeleteJulia- When a pregnant woman in any stage is murdered, it is a double homicide. This is interesting because abortions are legal yet if a pregnant woman is murdered its a double homicide. Law contradicts itself there. This relates to our discussion because a life is a life no matter what stage it is in. Making it killing no matter when it is. The requirement of counseling further instills the fact that they know this decision isn't small and some part of them knows they are ending a life. And ending human life is just wrong, especially when it is helpless and innocent. I want to end this one with a question: Should we as a society and country continue to prevent suicides even more than we do currently?
DeleteGlad you mentioned Fetal Homicide laws because it's something I forgot to bring up. In 38 states, it is considered a double homicide if you kill a pregnant women and like you said this means the law completely contradicts itself which is just insane. How can an unborn baby be alive in one scenario yet fine to kill in the next.
DeleteOkay a lot between both responses but I'll start with Julia's. I'm still a little confused. Do you believe that only first trimester abortions are okay? Just a clarification would be helpful. As for the main part of your response, I just don't think that how long it might take to get an appointment or how much time passes before realizing your pregnant is relevant to if abortion is okay or not. As I have said, I comes down to if the fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever you want to call it is alive and life does not change based on how long it takes to get an appointment. So again, it comes down to this, when is the fetus/etc. alive because I personally believe that science backs the idea that life begins at conception which means that destroying the fetus/embryo/zygote anytime after conception is killing the child. As for how you ended your response, I disagree. How could killing a child be more ethical than giving it a chance to live even if there is a possibility that they might live in bad circumstances? Would it be more ethical to kill your best friend just because they had a rough home life and bad circumstances? Who are we to say what kind of life that child will have. We don't know his future. Countless people have grown up in rough circumstances but have still led happy lives so how is just killing them more ethical? Above all, I would just like to know when you think human life begins because that is the most important question. What event occurs that makes a fetus/embryo/zygote alive?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, thanks for commenting this is something that I am very passionate about so I appreciate you taking the time to write a comment. I would ask you similar questions that I've asked others in order to better understand your opinion if you want to have a discussion. What justifies an abortion? When is it okay/not okay? When does a fetus become alive? To begin, you said that Abortion is not just done on a whim and it is due to health complications but also said that abortion is okay due to financial struggles. So, just to clarify, do you believe abortion should only be aloud when there is a health concern or should it always be allowed because I will tell you that the majority of abortions are not performed due to health concerns. The majority of abortions happen when there is no health risk but the baby is just unwanted. So again just want to clarify your stance. As far as a poor financial situation being a justification for killed an unborn baby, I would disagree. Would it be okay to kill your 2 year old because you cannot support it? Of course it wouldn't because taking an innocent life is not justified by not being in a good financial situation. To address your point about the holocaust comparison, I would say it is quite accurate. As you put it, the Holocaust was the systemic isolation of a group of people who dehumanized as justification to kill them. Adolf Hitler believed that Jewish people were lesser than himself so he dehumanized them to make it okay to kill them which is absolutely horrible. Abortion is pretty similar. Society has dehumanized a group of small innocent humans as a means to justify taking their lives. In both instances, a weaker group is being dehumanized by a stronger group as justification to kill them. They are in fact extremely similar. Sorry this is very long so if you don't feel like responding that's fine but I would ask you, when does human life begin for this is the most important question in regards to abortion.
ReplyDeleteOh and in regards to procedures like vasectomies, I have zero problem with them. They help prevent unwanted pregnancy which is a great thing and these procedures don't kill babies.
ReplyDeleteI guess it doesn't really matter to me when abortions happen. I've never been pregnant or had an abortion if you can believe, so I'm not the most knowledgable on this topic. I guess the main thing is, it doesn't affect us. If a woman decides not to have a baby, it's her choice and she should be allowed to have that choice. The choice she makes won't affect you, me, or anyone outside of her immediate life. Abortion is a tricky topic. I'm glad you're passionate about it Anthony and you have a stance and are able to teach others without forcing your opinion on them, but what a woman chooses to do with her body should be her choice. It shouldn't be up to the government or anyone else. It's a decision every woman has to make when they get pregnant and many woman choose to carry and keep the baby. I feel abortion should be available to everyone even if they decide not to have one, because it's their choice. I personally will probably never get an abortion, but I still would like to have the choice. Life is a precious thing and every conception is basically a miracle given the odds. However, women should not be forced to go through the strain of pregnancy if they don't want to. I do have a question for you though; are you against all abortions, or do you believe there are exceptions for example if it is unhealthy for the mother to carry the baby as was discussed earlier?
ReplyDeleteTo say we shouldn't care about things that don't affect us with all due respect is ridiculous. Just because I myself was not affected by the holocaust or rape or the terrorism in the middle east doesn't mean we shouldn't care. Just because I myself have never experienced racism doesn't mean I shouldn't care. Just because I haven't been personally affected by the almost 60 million killed from abortion doesn't mean I shouldn't care about it. Again I respect your opinion even though I don't agree. To answer your question, I believe that abortion should never be allowed. The only exception would be if the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother because in that case both the unborn baby and the mother would die so if the mother is going to die from the pregnancy, than you save whoever you can. But I really just want you to see that if the unborn baby is alive, than abortion is murder of an innocent life and in no case is that ever acceptable and in no way is that justifiable. It doesn't really seem like I'm going to change your mind but I'd really encourage you to think about this. Realize how important it is and really understand what you believe. Happy to keep discussing though.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever heard of bodily autonomy? I would love to have a conversation.
ReplyDeleteI would gladly have this conversation with you. Science proves that the fetus has their own DNA that is different from the mother. This proves that it isn't the woman's body but the child inside her womb. If we can do whatever to our bodies then why aren't we aloud to use drugs and alcohol and drive while intoxicated?
DeleteEven if the baby is its own completely developed human being, it still relies on its mother. Because of bodily autonomy laws, you never have to provide your body to another person to save them. Even though you can donate one of your kidneys to another person to save their life, that would be unethical to be forced to give up a part of your body. The baby relies on a mother, inhabits her uterus, and uses her whole body. How is this any different then being forced to donate a organ? We aren't allowed to use drugs or alcohol because that would stunt our development, and the laws surrounding substances are there to protect us. We do not have to give up a part of our own bodies in order to not use these substances. Drunk driving law are put in place because it protects other people, and again does not require us to give up our body. The right to chose is in this context being used as a political phrase about women's reproductive health rights, not an argument for anarchy.
DeleteI would be more than happy to have that conversation.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for discussing Anthony, I think I really figured out how I feel about this topic.
ReplyDeleteThis is great! It's the whole point of a mature and educated discussion, to figure out what you believe and why.
DeleteFirst of thanks for commenting Katrina I appreciate it. To begin, you said even if a baby is its own complete independent person, it's okay to abort it because it relies on the mother and uses her body. You than related this to being forced to donate an organ which you said was wrong and I would agree. However, I this analogy doesn't represent abortion well. Lets say that I needed a kidney to survive and thankfully, someone gives me that kidney. Then, after I have been given that kidney and it is keeping me alive, that donor says that I don't have the right to use their kidney, they pull it out of me, and I die which I think we would agree would be wrong. This would be more like abortion because in both cases, one person has caused the other person to need their own body and stripping that away would be murder. I hope that makes sense and am curious what your specific views on abortion are? Is it always okay or just sometimes? What justifies it? When can it happen/not happen?
ReplyDeleteI totally see where you are coming from, but until the end of the end of the 2nd trimester, the baby is completely reliant on the mother and could not live by its self. So in the case of pregnancy, the fetus is using the mother's body, and in the case of donating a kidney, you could schedule an appointment for the removal surgery, but then change your mind before it happens. The hospital could not force you to donate. It is completely unethical to be forced to give up your body. The fetus would not be able to live outside the womb in the 1st and 2nd trimester, and can not even feel pain, so it is very different than your kidney example. And even in the 3rd trimester, when the baby may be able to sustain life outside of the womb, the women did not just decide they no longer wanted the fetus. In almost every case of 3rd trimester abortion, the delivery would have killed the mother or the baby would have suffered and only lived a few minutes in great pain. Even if you are morally against abortion, the law should always favor bodily autonomy, which I see as a natural right.
DeleteTo begin, I'm just a little confused on why you don't think the kidney example is not applicable so if you could explain that would be great. Next, I would also like to clarify that third trimester abortions are not at all just restricted to extreme health concerns. All the time women get 3rd trimester abortions not because of health concerns but simply because they don't want them. Next, I don't see why you think abortion is okay when the fetus is completely reliant on the mother but not when it's just somewhat reliant. So it's not okay to kill when it's helpless but is okay when it's very helpless? Next, I agree that the hospital should not force you to donate an organ but I think you missed the point of my analogy. In my kidney analogy, the kidney is removed after someone has already given it up and it is already inside of the other person which is what abortion is like. In pregnancy, the baby isn't asking the mother for her uterus and the mother says no. The fetus is already using the uterus and the mother says that she wants it back which is exactly like the kidney analogy. Another thing I wanted to mention is that just because a fetus at some point can't feel pain isn't justification to kill it. Lastly, even if the bodily autonomy worked, how does that right trump a humans right to life?
DeleteWhen a women becomes pregnant, the fetus completely relies on the women and is using her body. It completely drains her and in a lot of cases causes physical pain to the mother. No women should be forced to give up her body to this. The kidney example you provided is closer to killing the baby after it is born, which is obviously not ok. A fetus is still leaching off of the mother until it is born. And in an unwanted pregnancy, the women never consented to her body being used, so she should not be forced to give up her body. And if you are going to argue that you should never kill something that is helpless, should we all have to be vegetarian? Should we always take bugs outside instead of killing them? Another example is when a women is trying to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization, is it murder if the zygote doesn't attach to the uterus wall? We kill "helpless" things every day, but it all comes down to the life that we value. I value the life of a women more than that of a fetus. If you don't that is completely fine, but don't force your own opinions on others.
DeleteNo problem Julia glad we could have a civil discussion about it.
ReplyDeleteAnother example Katrina would be let's say I'm out in the middle of the ocean on my boat and all of the sudden, I find a man hiding in my boat. The boat is my personal property, I own it. Does this give me the right to throw this man overboard? Would that be okay? I would argue that that would not be okay. Simply ownership of something does not give you the right to kill innocent people residing within that ownership.
ReplyDeleteMy body is not a boat, and another person in the boat would not take me out out school, sports, and work like a pregnancy would. Allowing another person the right to live is not the same as giving someone your own life.
DeleteOkay so let's say that this guy on the boat also somehow takes you out of school and sports. Can you kill him then? Seems like murder with selfish intent.
DeleteFirst of all, abortion is not murder in any seance of the word. A body is not a boat and a fetus is not a person. This analogy is not accurate, so my ideas about an abortion should not be applied onto killing an actual human being. If I found a man on my boat that was not harming me, I would go to shore and let him go because he is a person. I don't think anything under this thread has been productive because for me, the morality of abortion and murder are VERY different to me, and from what I can tell it is not the same for you. I'll happily debate other opinions, but this type of difference in morality will never be a productive conversation while typing over a screen.
DeleteOkay I think I now understand your position a little bit better and if you would like to I would like to continue discussing but I understand if you don't want to. I would like to know when you think life begins? Again I understand if you do not want to continue discussing but if you would, I would appreciate what you think about that question and and what you believe is correct. You have clarified that you do not believe a fetus is a person if I understand correctly and you have a right to your own opinion. As I said I am just curious when you think life begins because that is an important question in regards to abortion.
DeleteWell your entitled to your own opinion so thanks for sharing. I really hope that you would just give this topic some after this and to always keep an open mind about any topic. Thank you.
DeleteI would argue that it becomes a person around 25 weeks, or about the end of the second trimester, because this is when it is developed enough to processes sensory stimuli in its brains cortex, meaning this is when it actually begins to feel things. I would also not be opposed to arguments of later dates when the fetus begins to hear it's mothers voice and begins to feel the emotion. This is a very personal question of what you consider a valuable life and everyone may have different interpretations. I also do not believe that third trimester abortion should be completely illegal, because the vast majority of women would not carry a baby for 6 months and then just decide they don't want it. A small percentage of abortions are 3rd trimester, and almost all for the safety of the mother, or because the baby will not make it.
DeleteBefore I go on, to ensure that I am not misrepresenting you, you have said that you believe life begins at 25 weeks or so because that it when it can feel things and has brain activity and to you, that is when life begins. But, you also said that in some cases, third trimester abortions should be allowed if the mother's life is at risk due to health concerns. Am I correct in saying that this is your position before I move on?
DeleteYes, I believe that if the birth will kill the mother, then she should be able to terminate her pregnancy. This is obviously an incredibly hard and emotional decision, but I would rather mourn for something i was only anticipating than someone I already knew and loved. I also don't believe women should be forced to go through the physical birth of a still born or a baby that will die in minuets and live a life of only pain. I don't think it should be an option just because they want to, but that is a very small percent of 3rd term abortions.
DeleteOkay at least we can find a little common ground. If the mother will die due to complications with the pregnancy, you have to try to save everyone and hopefully you can save the baby and mother but sadly this does not always happen. This is just one thing that I would hope you can consider. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception and I believe science supports this view. The problem with the idea a human is alive once it can feel things is that there are adults who also can't feel things so simply feeling things is not a sufficient definition for a human to be alive because I think that you would agree that we shouldn't kill adults who cannot feel things. Hope that makes sense.
DeleteLife at conception is a very religious argument and this is definitely not an appropriate setting to have this kind of discussion. I will happily talk about the legality of this though. And I believe that what makes humans so special compared to other species is our ability to feel things for other people, and feel empathy and compassion and love. This is the reason most people feel it is ok to kill animals, because they don't have these types if complex thinking. Most adults who cannot have these feelings were able to at some point, but traumatic experience made it so they can not. Because of this, I believe that a life that we value the same as born human life must have at some point been able to feel complex emotions towards one and other. But even if life begins at conception, I still believe a women should have the right to chose what happens to her body.
DeleteLife at conception is not a religious argument. It is just pure fact that a life form has been created and is undergoing the necessary process of becoming a human. By having an abortion, you are ending that life process. Babies conceived of irresponsibility are in no way allowed to be aborted. You own your mistake, and the child should not bear the consequence. If you seriously believe an abortion should be accessible other than in the case if the mother's life is in danger, you need to seek help. How many times have I seen "pro-choice" activists glorify abortion to the point where it almost industrializes human reproduction. Absolutely sickening, and just goes to show how this debate has evolved into not even a civil argument, but just a genuine carelessness for human life.
DeleteHi thomas. First of all, please don't tell me I need to "seek help" because I have differing views than you. Everyone else was having a fairly respectful argument, but what you replied was out of pocket. I can explain the legal issues of bodily autonomy if you like, or you can read my previous statements. Please don't use ad hominem to back up your arguments. I have been avoiding discussing personal ethics, and have only explained why the law favors one side. My brother is adopted because of a girl my age that did not want to have an abortion. When I say the right to chose, that means that I would never judge a women who chose to keep the fetus, just as I wouldn't judge her if she made the opposite decision. In the future, please make an effort to be respectful when debating issues of this magnitude.
DeleteI'm going to have to agree with Katrina here Thomas. We have all been respecting each others views during this debate. Telling those of us who agree with abortion that we need to "seek help" is just plain wrong. We all need to remember here that the strength we feel for our side, the other side feels just as strongly about their opinion. The point of this debate was for all of us to understand the other sides arguments and why they feel the way they feel, not to judge them or put them down for their beliefs like you did.
DeleteI wasn't trying to disrespect anyone's opinions. I shared my personal opinion on the matter, and I certainly didn't mean to put anyone down. I was saying that those who glorify abortion and want to make it overly accessible, and those who show no care for human life need to seek help. There are people who are proud of abortion...THEY need to seek help. Unless you that is your case, you have no reason to be offended. So instead of demeaning my argument by accusing me of "ad hominem", just try and acknowledge what I stated and then we can have civil argument👍...if you want to, of course.
DeleteKatrina- According to www.princeton.edu, "Scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities." According to Maureen L. Condic, employee at the University of Utah School of Medicine. "...This conclusion(that life begins at conception) is not a matter of religious belief or societal convention; it is a matter of objective, scientific observation." I could keep on going with more and more examples. At conception, a new unique DNA sequence is formed that will grow into a full sized baby. This is not religion, this is science. But It doesn't seem that you think this matters. As you said, "But even if life begins at conception, I still believe a women should have the right to chose what happens to her body." Well, if life begins at conception, meaning that this is a fully independent human being with rights like anyone else, the mother can get rid of this life just because the life is inside of her. Plus, if the unborn child is alive in the womb, it is not the mothers body. It may be in the mothers body, but it is not part of her own body and just because something is within your property does not justify you killing it(as explained by the boat ANALOGY). Next, you said most adults have once felt things, what about the ones that haven't? Can we kill them? I would lastly like to respond to what you said in response to Thomas when you said that you think the law favors bodily autonomy over the life of a child. I really don't even know what to say to that. How does "bodily autonomy" trump life. Life, the most precious and important right that anyone could have. I know you will probably reply by saying it's the woman's body so it's her choice but you have also said that even if the fetus is it's own independent life,(which it is)meaning that the fetus is not part of the woman's body, the mother should still be able to abort. Do you see what's wrong? If it is it's own being, which I still don't think I have convinced you of even though science(not religion) backs this up, than the mother aborting the child is in fact killing the child. I really hope that you can see what I am saying, even though I really don't think this conversation is going anywhere. You have made it clear that even if the fetus is alive, abortion should still be legal and I really don't see how you deep down could believe that. Your entitled to your opinion but I'd encourage you to think it over. Thank you for discussing.
DeleteThomas, you said, "If you seriously believe an abortion should be accessible other than in the case if the mother's life is in danger, you need to seek help." I do believe abortion should be accessible, so that is directly speaking to me. Please don't tell me what I should be offended by, that's not up to you. I am not sure how calling something "sicking" is not putting it down. You stated your opinions as fact, and that is not something that can lead to a healthy and respectful debate. I did not intend to demean your argument, but it was mostly attacks on the character of people who support pro-choice, so I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to say other than that you please be more respectful of other opinions.
DeleteTotally see what your saying Anthony, but the fetus is attached to the women through the umbilical cord, and needs her to survive. In this way, the fetus is an extension of the women. And even if it is not, the women does not have to give herself to the fetus. This is different than the boat analogy, because your body is very different than your property. Your body is the thing that is most truly yours, and the thing that can never be taken away from you. Everything else can be taken away from you, but not your body. This is why I don't mind that you believe life begins at conception, because a women still does not have to give her body to any other human being. I would also like to ask a question that I am just curious to hear what you answer is. I was born through IVF so that means they implant a zygote into my mom. In the first attempt to implant zygotes, it was not successful. Because those zygotes did not implant in the uterine wall, is that third degree murder? If zygotes are exactly the same as a person to you, wouldn't that mean that she killed people?
DeleteSo just because the fetus needs the mother to survive, we can kill it? a newborn needs it's mother to survive, so we can kill them two by that logic. A mother has to give a lot of her energy and physical body in the case of breast feeding a newborn. Is it justifiable to say that the mother can kill her newborn because she doesn't want to give it her body. Plus, near attachment to something doesn't give you the right to kill it. Let's say, by an extreme medical case, twins are born attached at the shoulder and they cannot be separated. As they grow up, one twin thrives, but the other one is always bringing the one down. When one wants something, the other always denies it and when one wants to go somewhere, the other denies it. The one lets say cannot provide for itself, so the other one has to provide for both. The one is giving their body to the other. But, one day, the twin decides they are tired of it and kill their attached twin. Is this justified or not? Because if not, than you also cannot justify abortion by the means you have explained. You also said a body is different from property because no one can take it away from you. In an abortion, the fetus is stripped of life and it's own body so yeah I guess you could say that someone can take it away from you. Do you know how an abortion is actually performed? I won't explain here because it is a but graphic but I would encourage you if you don't already know to look up how they happen and see what you think. Your argument seems to based on the idea that just because the fetus cannot provide for itself and needs another to survive, it's okay to kill it and by that logic, we can kill anyone who is completely reliant on someone else such as people with special needs or disabled people that cannot live on their own. To respond to your IVF question, although I don't see it's relevance, no that would not be murder. Not because the life of that zygote doesn't matter, but because the purpose of an IVF is not to kill the child. It is not intended to bring about the death of the child. However, that is the sole purpose of abortion. To take the life of a human being for selfish reasons.
DeleteI would also like to ask what you think about double homicide laws regarding pregnant women. In 38 states, if you kill a pregnant women, you are charged with the murder of the women and the child. Explain to me how the fetus is alive in one case but you can kill it in the next because I'm having a heard time understanding how this makes any logical sense.
DeleteI think were beating a dead horse at this point, and bringing up slightly different examples of things that are not abortion is not really going to change at this point. A mother does not have to breastfeed, and if she doesn't want to be a parent but chooses to carry the fetus, she can put it up for adoption. The twin case you bring up is highly unlikely because many of these people will not make it to adulthood, and is a question that's morals we could heavily debate forever. When I say you can't take it away, the exception is that you would be killed, I thought that would be implied. I honestly don't care if the abortion is graphic, because I still don't think pregnancy should be forced on women (and in the first trimester where most take place it is very simple). People who relies on others are different than the fetus inhabiting a women's body, and using her organs. A person assisting a disabled person agreed to do that and is doing actions that help them, not providing their organs. I don't agree with the double homicide laws, and never expressed support for them, so I don't know why that's relevant. I don't think we need to continue to express the same things over and over again, but I do thank you for the incite you have provided into the thinking of people on the other side than me.
DeleteThe helping disabled a person really is relevant because if you engage in an act that could very likely create a helpless child, you should be held responsible for your actions and agree to the risk that you might become pregnant and the solution shouldn't be to kill the child you've created. I don't really think you get that or care but just wanted to say it anyway. But, your entitled to your own opinion and thanks for discussing.
DeleteYou mention that pregnancy shouldn't be forced on women and it isn't. It is a consequence to a choice made by the woman and the man as well. To be brutally honest, abortion (outside of cases that threaten the life of the mother) is a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. It is a procedure that removes the consequence of an action, that evidently if the man or woman wants an abortion should never have happened and should have been avoided. So to say pregnancy is "forced", unless it is non- consensual sex, is completely inaccurate. Reason being she and the man took the chance that she would become pregnant. The reason that the double homicide example is relevant is because it is an example in law that states the unborn baby is a human. Anthony's example of Princeton is very important because if one of the most prestigious universities in our great country says that the "immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being". So upon fertilization it UNDENIABLY a human. Meaning it is a human life. And if a human decides to end the life of another human that is classified as murder. Now, I know your point will be bodily autonomy. If a person is a danger to themselves or others they forfeit that right. Since the unborn child, in any stage, is human the mother by choosing to end its life is a danger to the unborn child. Therefore, bodily autonomy doesn't justify abortion. With all that being said, it is most importantly a human life. Saying abortion is okay and an ethical practice is justification of murder.
DeleteAnthony and Austen, I respect your opinions but I do not understand some of your arguments. You say that abortion is okay if the pregnancy will kill the mother, but if all life is precious, how do you chose one of the other? In this situation, you are putting the mother’s life above the life of the fetus, which doesn’t make sense to me since you both so passionately expressed how the life of the fetus is equally as important as the life of any other person who is outside of the womb. Another reason that saying an abortion is okay if it puts the mother’s life at risk is because all pregnancy’s put a mother’s life at risk. It is a fact that America has the highest rate of pregnancy related deaths in the world of developed countries. And over the years, this specific death rate has been increasing in America. Complications during pregnancy are much more common than you would think, and pose a threat to the fetus and the mother, whether this threat is death, disability, or post-birth side effects varies case to case. If you would like to see more information about complications and their side effects, how pre-existing medical conditions can affect pregnancy, and some stats on complications, here is information from the CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html
Delete(Part 1/2)
Another argument of yours of which I can hopefully provide some insight to is how a fetus is different from a healthy human, and a disabled one. A person, as well as a disabled person, are both able to survive without the assistance of another in respect to bodily functions. For a fully healthy human, this is pretty self explanatory, but I would understand if there was confusion in regards to a disabled person. Even if a disabled person cannot technically survive completely on their own, due to the fact that they could need an aid, special medicines or devices, hospital care, treatments, etc., they can still technically perform functions necessary for life, such as respiration, digestion, excretion, etc. Even though they could need aid for these, they do not need someone else to complete the processes for them. For example, a disabled person does not need someone else to physically breath for them, and then supply them with that oxygen. A fetus on the other hand, relies on the mother for every single bodily process. There is a special circulatory system specifically for fetuses. The circulation of a fetus’s blood is completely different than that of a person. A placenta is an organ that develops during pregnancy, and implants itself into the mother’s womb. The placenta takes part of the mother’s nutrients, oxygen, blood, and everything that is essential to support life. The placenta then uses the umbilical cord to give all of this to the fetus. The waste products the fetus produces, can not be excreted by the fetus alone. They are sent through the umbilical cord, to the placenta, and back to the mother for excretion. Inside of the womb, a fetus’ lungs are not being used, the liver is not fully developed, so processes regarding respiration and blood circulation are extremely different from those of a person. On top of that, the brain is still not fully developed during the first two trimesters because it is still not making connections the way a person’s brain does. During the third trimester, the brain grows more and begins to make more connections. This as well as other developments is why a fetus is more likely to survive outside of the womb once the third trimester begins. The third trimester starts at 27 weeks. 24 weeks is when the fetus can technically survive outside of the womb, but it is still extremely risky, and can lead to many, many compilations, as well as death of the fetus. At any time before 24 weeks, the chance is very slim of the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb, and before 21 weeks, it is impossible. This is why I would personally not classify abortion as murder, because a fetus is not the same as a fully developed human. A fetus truly needs their mother to be able to survive, and if a mother does not want to give up her body, as well as take the risks of pregnancy, she should not have to. I respect your opinions though and am glad I was able to gain more insight about your views.
Delete(Part 2/2)
Just as a follow up to Devin and one of her arguments, I have a question about defining abortion as murder. Austen mentions this multiple times throughout his argument, and at one point specifically says, "Saying abortion is okay and an ethical practice is justification of murder." My question is how is murder okay some of the time but not all the time?
DeleteAusten specifies that "abortion (outside of cases that threaten the life of the mother)" isn't okay, and it shouldn't be practiced. But like Devin said, how can you justify abortion here, when you believe that an embryo and a human are the both equals.
If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then how can you allow the mother here to MURDER her own child? It's still murder isn't it? How is this okay?
If abortion is murder how can you justify a mother murdering her own child to save herself?
First of all, Chad I hope you saw my response at to you at the bottom of this document. Next, Devin, if you really read what I said about pregnancy that can kill the mother, you'd would see that I did not say it was okay if it just threatens the mothers life. To clarify, we are talking about a very small percent of all abortions. I believe that there is only one exact very specific scenario where abortion would be okay. It would only be if the baby is not old enough to survive outside the womb and that the only thing that will save the mother is the removal of the baby because in this case, the baby dies either way because if the mother dies it dies and it cannot survive outside the womb. However, in one, the mother lives so at least one life can be saved. This is one very specific scenario. To be honest, that is a tangent just drawing away from the main issue for we are talking about a extremely small amount of abortions and trying to use this one small example to debunk my argument was not very effective. Now to get back to majority of abortions, it is a fact that the majority of abortions are not at all medically necessary. Devin, to your next point, you said that a fetus is different from a person because even disabled persons can perform bodily functions necessary for life. This is simply not true. There are countless people who cannot breathe on their own and require a machine to do so so technically something is breathing for them. There are also countless people who cannot perform digestion or excretion. Some adults do not have fully developed brains. We cannot kill any of these people. You next said that a fetus is not the same as a fully developed person and your right. Just like a toddler is not the same as a 30 year old. Just because the fetus is not fully developed, this doesn't make it less of a human life. It is scientifically shown that our brains to not finish developing until around the age of 25. We cannot kill those under 25 just because their brains are not fully developed. This whole argument is based on an idea that we can't kill helpless people,(such as some disabled people) but we can kill the unborn just because they are completely helpless and as I have explained, there are many born people who are also completely helpless but we cannot kill them. Chad, as I said, if you haven't I would appreciate you reading my response to your points about adoption.
DeleteI'm sorry that I misunderstood what situation you meant when talking about the mother's life, I understand your view a little bit more now. But in regards to the argument about a disabled person vs. a fetus, I did not mean that a disabled person may be able to perform all bodily functions completely independently. As I said, many disabled people require special devices, machines, and medicines to perform them, but they do not need another person to physically do that process for them. A person could need a machine to breathe, but it is not a person that is giving them oxygen, it is a machine. A fetus on the other hand requires their mother to supply them with oxygen. The person carrying the fetus is not a machine, they are a human. That is where the difference lays - a human supplying everything the fetus needs vs. machines and medicines supplying what a disabled person needs. I honestly do not believe that a disabled person is an accurate comparison for a fetus because they are at two completely different stages in life - one in the womb, one outside of the womb. My point with the development of a fetus was that it cannot live outside of the womb until it reaches week 24. A toddler, a 30 year old, anyone under the age of 25, adults with not fully developed brains, and disabled people can all live outside of the womb, unlike a fetus. Ultimately, the fetus is inside the mother and its life is directly reliant on hers, so it is her decision what to do with it.
DeleteYou say the fetus belongs to the mother, but are we going to ignore the fact that the male was directly responsible for bringing life to it. It should be a decision made together. Any sane person should know the risks before entering in any sort of sexual activity. But, I guess it all comes down to political ideology as pro-choicers generally are the ones who take more risks. However, you cannot deny the fact that in some abortion clinics, the baby's limbs are harvested for LIFE studies. Very sickening indeed to think about. Its the industrialization of human reproduction, something the pro-choice crowd fails to see time and time again. The majority of America is pro-life, and a super majority (87 percent) believe it is unethical to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester. No wonder more and more restrictions are being imposed on the practice of abortion.
DeleteOkay let's take a step back for a minute. You just recently have joined this discussion so I would like to better understand your own opinions. You ended your comment by saying that "the fetus is inside the mother and its life is directly reliant on hers, so it is her decision what to do with it." So just to clarify, do you think a fetus is it's own separate life from the mother? When do you think human life begins? I know you brought up that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until about 25 weeks. Do you support abortion after this point? When do you believe abortion is okay and not okay or is it always okay? I believe that once you answer these questions, I can better understand your side and continue with our discussion so answering these would be really helpful. Thanks!
DeleteOh and to clarify this was directed to Devin because I also saw Thomas just responded.
DeleteJust to add in quickly, if a woman or man doesn't want a child or prepared to have one, then they shouldn't be participating in activities that could result in a child. If someone is having sex, there are risking pregnancy as a result. The pregnancy is a result of actions. If the individuals didn't have sex then they would still be enjoying their normal lives.
ReplyDeleteThis is the most unrealistic approach to the concept of abortion. Based on US population statistics, in 2019, there were 42.68 million people between the ages 15-24. I believe it would be accurate to say that this age range is the most sexually active. What you are saying is that if you are not ready, finically or emotionally, to have a child, then you should not have sex.
DeleteTeens are filled with hormones due to puberty, which would result in more sexual behavior from them. We should not be trying to sexually oppress teens and scare them so they won't have sex. We need to offer tools and resources to support teens with products like contraceptives and emotional support. We shouldn't be telling them that it's THEIR FAULT for having sex and having something go wrong, or for being ill prepared for the sexual encounter.
But if a mistake or an irresponsible choice is made, and that results in a pregnant teen or young adult, the option of abortion should be available to them. At the end of the day, it should not be a MANS decision for what a women is allowed to do with her body. If she makes a mistake or something happens, her life should not be ruined do to that.
Hey Chad thanks for commenting. I don't think it's about trying to oppress and scare kids about sex, but I don't think we should encourage it and I don't think that it is wrong to say that you shouldn't have sex if you aren't prepared to possibly have a child. We should be promoted things such as self control and abstinence and that does not mean that we should make kids afraid of sex. Next, someones life doesn't have to be ruined by an unwanted pregnancy which is why adoption is such a great thing. Lastly I would just say that I am not telling anyone what to do with there bodies because a fetus, although in a women's body, is its own person which is why I am against abortion. I don't agree with controlling a women's body but I do care about the killing of unborn babies. I would ask when do you think a fetus becomes alive and also when is abortion okay/not okay?
DeleteRegardless of your intentions, what you are suggesting would scare teens about sex. Suggesting the idea that if you have sex, you are responsible for outcome (which could be a child), would definitely scare teens. Teens can't provide a stable environment for a child, and are not emotionally ready to take care of a child. Teens need options. Not all ~42 million teens will abstain to abstinence; in fact, "Over Half of U.S. Teens Have Had Sexual Intercourse by Age 18" according to the CDC.
DeleteThe reality is, a majority of teens will engage in sexual intercourse. Some of these sexual encounters will result in a pregnancy, and teens need options. Teens need programs such as Planned Parenthood, and even school nurses and guidance counselors to support their journey to adulthood. Teens need access to "The morning after pill,"Plan Bs, D&Cs, and abortions. They need to have these options open to them because suggesting abstinence is the best option is completely unrealistic.
In regards to adoption, as a hypothetical, it seems like a good option- but in reality, it isn't. According to a study conducted by the Institute of Family Studies, "about one in four adopted children has a diagnosed disability, twice the rate of children being raised by both biological parents." They also followed to up to suggest that as children develop, "the problems ... not only fail to fade with time—they multiply." This research suggests that those children in adoption have a seriously hard time with their life, and the disabilities they may obtain. Not to mention the fact that there are millions of orphans waiting for a family, some taking years and years, and others never finding a family at all. Not to mention potential encounters with drugs, kidnap, and child abduction that could occur in an orphanage or foster home. There is also racism in the adoption system, but that is a whole other topic. Teenage bodies are not meant to have children so young, and they shouldn't be forced to have a child just because "they can put it up for adoption." Adoption is a good alternative for parenting, not pregnancy.
Now, before you say, "But at least you are giving them a chance at life," think about it from a logical perspective. If a child is accidentally conceived, and would not have a proper home with the love and attention it requires, wouldn't it be cruel to put it into the world anyway, just because you think its wrong to have other alternatives to pregnancy.
Just remember that telling kids that unwanted pregnancy could be a consequence of sex is a time honored scare tactic to keep teens from having sex for many generations! Adults want kids to be scared of having sex because it's a big deal with many more physical and emotional repercussions than teens or young adults can grasp. Yes, teens will partake, but they do have to know all the possible effects of such an activity.
DeleteChad- I would like to begin by saying in no way is what I am about to say a personal attack on you. This is something that I am very passionate so if I get a little heated I apologize in advance. I'm just going to respond to everything you said in order. To begin, you said that we shouldn't teach teens that they are responsible for the outcome of sex because it would scare them about sex. This is completely wrong. Part of being a teenager is learning that your actions, all of your actions, including the choice to have sex have consequences and that you are responsible for those actions. I do not want to live in a society were no one takes on any form of personal responsibility and there are no consequences for our actions. I think everyone at this age that if you have sex, the outcome could be pregnancy and if that is not your own responsibility, than who's is it? All of our actions have consequences and it's absurd to say that they don't. Next you said that since so many teens engage in sexual intercourse, it would be unrealistic to suggest that abstinence is the best option. This also doesn't make sense. No matter how many teens have sex, abstinence is still the best way to ensure you do not get pregnant because it is literally impossible to get pregnant without having sex. Also, if something is done by so many people(in this case teenage sexual intercourse), does this mean that we should just accept it and not say that the best way to avoid doing that thing is by simply not doing it? If 50% of men had raped a women, would we justify it by saying, "well the men just wanted to have sex so it's not there fault and they shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions?" Of course not that would be terrible and that is the same as far as teens and sex. Just because their are so many teens who do it, this shouldn't excuse them from the consequences of their actions. Your next main point was that adoption is good in theory, but isn't good in reality because may people in the adoption system suffer from disabilities and have hard lives and it would be cruel to bring them into the world. So, just because it is possible the child may have disabilities and a tough life, it's okay to kill it? Can I kill my friends just because they have rough home lives and difficult situations? Can I kill people with special needs just because they have a "lower quality of life?" I I kill whoever I want because they might get kidnapped? No. The answer is no to all of these. We cannot predict the future. We don't know what kind of lives children in the adoption system will live an saying that we should be allowed to kill babies simply because it's a possibility they might live bad lives would also give justification to kill anyone because anyone can live a bad life. And you know what, it you get anything out of this message, get this. My mom, she was adopted. She was conceived and for whatever reason, her birth parent's didn't want her. Should my grandmother have aborted her? She might have disabilities or a hard life because of adoption. Should she have been killed? Should she have been killed so that she could never have gone on to live the incredible life that she's made for herself? Should she have been killed so that I, my brother, and my two sisters would have never been created all because there was a possibility she might live a bad life? Chad, I'd beg you to reconsider your stance on this issue and see that the killing of children is not justified by the possibility of a tough life. I apologize this is quite long, but it needed to be said.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know your Mom was adopted!
Delete