(2/2) …. the girl still has to carry the baby to term (which isnt easy, and i dont wish to trivialize it: it is a very demanding and taxing ordeal) but isnt that better than an abortion? the baby gets to live and the mother can “continue” about her life (theres no question that she will be a changed person aftterwards. her family and social life will be affected as well) i apologize if im being rude in some way, but i am definitely curious as to what u have to say!”
First, I would like to say, you are not being rude in any way, and I greatly appreciate you asking my opinion on the matter rather than just attacking me for having the less popular opinion. So I respect your curiosity and am happy to oblige it (and I apologize in advance for the length of this response, but it is a very complicated issue).
The biggest thing I need to point out is that the movement is not “pro-abortion,” nor should it be. The idea is about choice; the freedom to choose what does and doesn’t happen to your body. You can drunkenly decide to get a tattoo; no one tells you that you do not have the right to also remove that tattoo. It all revolves around this concept called bodily autonomy, which long story short, is all about having the rights to do what you want with your body when you wish to; no one can, nor should be able to govern what you choose to do with your body. Preventing abortions directly interferes with a woman’s bodily autonomy, and that is one of my biggest problems with it.
Another major problem is our culture valuing one life more than another. Yes, it is up for debate at what point “life” begins, but for me, an even bigger point to make is which life has been invested in more? A young woman may have made one mistake (or a multitude of other explanations that were not in her control; a condom broke, she was raped, etc.), but does that deserve to negate everything else she has worked towards? Though pursuing the route of adoption is certainly viable, is does not avoid a great deal of the consequences that pregnancies (especially unintended ones) cause. She may be shunned, her family may disown her (depending on status of marriage and cultures), she may have medical complications (pregnancy can be a huge health risk for some women, and women today still die in childbirth), she may not be able to afford the costs of prenatal care (pregnancy is a huge expense, regardless of health insurance/financial assistance), and a multitude of other things. All of these various complications could severely damage the life she has currently built for herself, and I don’t think anyone should be forced to sacrifice the things they’ve put their hearts and souls into. And to say that she has to for the ‘life’ of another, ultimately is saying that a fetal life is more important than a full grown adult woman’s life, which I find highly distressing and deeply disturbing, considering one is a microscopic clump of cells (at the point of most abortions), and one is a breathing, living, loving fully developed person. I do not mean to trivialize the value and importance of life, no matter its maturity, but when women’s lives are put last in any and all circumstances, our culture has a serious problem.
Which brings me to another important aspect; women will always have abortions. Currently one in three women have had an abortion, and as long as women are incapable of 100% preventing pregnancy when sexually active, I think it’s safe to say, there will always be women seeking abortions. By trying to prevent abortions via legal viability, you do not reduce the number of abortions, but rather increase the number of unsafe, potentially life-endangering abortions. So the bigger question should be “How do we keep women safe?” rather than “How do we stop women from getting abortions?”
Thirdly, you should never force a rape victim to keep the child born out of such a traumatic event if she does not want to. She has already suffered one of the most horrendous ordeals she most likely will ever face, and to continue that torture any further is not only cruel, but inhumane. You also can’t make the destruction of ‘life’ permissible sometimes, and other times not, so by default, you can’t make abortion illegal if for nothing else, to protect victims of sexual assault.
Additionally, there are already over 100,000 children in the United States waiting for adoption. Until we have more seeking parents than seeking children, I do not understand why people push the adoption option. What point is there in saving a life if you are not guaranteeing its happy and healthy future? Which brings me about to my biggest point against the ‘pro-life’ movement: nothing about pro-life endeavors extends beyond the womb to protect children. Food stamps? Screw that. CHIP?! Never! Welfare? Abomination!! Raising the minimum to afford basic human needs?!? INSANITY! But don’t you dare abort that fetus. If being pro-life was really about protecting and valuing life, there are much better ways to go about it, such as the above-mentioned social issues. And, more importantly, if we stopped preventing easy and affordable access to contraception and other forms of pregnancy prevention, we would have many more pregnancies prevented, rather than aborted (which is something pro-lifers seem disinclined to understand or acknowledge).
For all these reasons, I stand by a woman’s right to choose, regardless of the other viable options. No one should be forced to physically undergo something as demanding and potentially dangerous as pregnancy unless it’s actually what she wants.