Pro-life: Restrict abortion rights
E-mail
Comment
For the opposing view on this issue, visit Nigel Alcorn's column, Pro-choice: Abortion assists low-income families.
To murder a child is arguably the most heinous crime to commit. But to kill an unborn child has become a widespread norm across America. This double standard is nothing but an excuse for irresponsibility between two people.
The pro-choice agenda helps justify couples who practice unsafe sex and eliminate the consequences of their bad decision. Pro-life activists hope to make laws that help protect the health of the mothers and ultimately save the lives of innocent babies.
Life begins at conception ? that is when the sperm and egg meet and join their chromosomes together to create a child. By the third week, a fetus has already begun to form a brain, spinal cord and a primitive heart tube.
Between weeks eight through 12, facial features are developed and tooth buds, legs and arms are already in progress. This all occurs within the first trimester, yet abortion laws allow women seeking an abortion to perform the operation up to the second trimester. By then, eyebrows, eyelashes and a heartbeat ? able to be heard with a stethoscope ? have already formed. To come up with excuses on how this is not murder is simply ignorant and irresponsible.
Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, more than 47 million babies have been put to death in the United States. The most popular way to perform a surgical abortion in America is the vacuum method, which sucks the fetus out of the mother. Just like dirt in the carpet, a human life is shredded in a bag and then disposed of by its mother and the doctor.
In contrast, a medical abortion allows the mother to take a pill that kills the fetus without the evasive process of surgery. Medical abortions exist as options for women who are eight weeks pregnant or less. In effect, the abortion pill mimics a miscarriage ? a very tortuous miscarriage for the fetus.
"[People] seem to forget that there is a human life inside wishing to have the right to live just like any other person." ?John Dinsdale, '09
Pro-choice activists argue that if clinics were not open to the public mothers would find alternative ways to perform the act. Although that is a good point, the legalization of abortion places that option in the mother's head early on without thinking of adoption or other, healthier ways of removing the child from their care.
Pro-life supporters have tried to make laws that force minors to notify their parents and wait a few days before making their final decision. Californian pro-lifers tried and failed to pass this type of proposition in 2008.
It should be mandatory for minors to have parental consent before making such a crucial decision. The physical, emotional and financial responsibilities are hard enough for a grown adult to handle ? no less a minor who was senseless enough to endure an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Although recent technology allows for fewer physical health issues from surgical and medical abortions, mental health problems frequently occur. Recent studies show that depression, anxiety and substance abuse often affect women who have abortions. Laws also allow women to have abortions without the father's consent, making it unfair for men who may want the child.
Since the Roe v. Wade decision, pro-lifers have simply asked the government to make certain restrictions on abortion. Unfortunately, pro-choice activists encourage women to undergo the operation without a space of time to truly consider possible repercussions.
Pro-choice activists voice concern that the government is robbing women of their rights by making abortion illegal. To them, it is the mother's body and her choice to choose what to do with it. However, they seem to forget that there is another human life involved.
In life, important decisions are usually made after analyzing the pros and cons of an issue. However, pro-choicers wish to lift laws for clinics to mandatorily inform women about the repercussions of the abortion along with alternatives like adoption. They also are against parental and spousal notification and legalizing a time period to make a decision.
These restrictions only hinder women from making informed and wise decisions that will affect their bodies and lives for years to come. For adopting the name "pro-choice," these activists allow little chance for women to make a choice.
Posted by "Zachary Cuesta" on April 15, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
While I do agree with this article and I am pro-life, there are many points this article failed to address.
Nigel had pointed to financial issues about abortion and had stated that it must remain an option. I truly admire him for his views (though I disagree) because they tend to remind us that no solution will be perfect.
Perhaps instead of Christians continually stating that abortion is wrong, we should offer other alternitives. I admire those groups that help these pregnant women seek alternatives to abortion. To me, they are taking action around the law, not trying to get rid of it.
Also, if you look at those who support pro life, one thing is common, many will not be affected by this problem. They will not be the ones who are hurt if abortion is outlawed.
How many commenting on this Web site truly know this issue, as in it directly affected your life not a relatives (and do not try to use this against me because that is the most pathetic comeback).
Other than this, great article and I hope more debate continues here.
Posted by "Tyler Duerr" on March 11, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
John, great job on this article! I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that this is the article that's got it all right. It may appear differently because of the huge battle going on at the pro-choice article, but this is the article that actually states the truth.
John, of course you know the only reason it's not getting as much attention is because it's not as blatantly, hilariously, and completely wrong as that OTHER article. Just wanted to remind you, great job on the pro-life article!
Posted by "Melissa Lichti" on February 23, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
I am very passionate on the issue of abortion because it is in obvious contradiction to the Bible. Murder is never acceptable.
My two younger sisters are both adopted from China, a third world country that has a one child policy. They spent the first three years of their life in an orphanage. If they had been aborted, there would be a huge hole in my life.
I love my sisters as much as I love my biological siblings. Adoption is an easy choice that can potentially save lives. I hope that people would consider this option before killing their child. I agree with everything you said, John.
Great article!
Posted by "Jenn Tatum" on February 18, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
Why are we taking this gift away? If you are "responsible" enough to do the things you do to get pregnant, then why aren't you "responsible" enough to care for that beautiful, amazing, bundle of joy? And if you aren't, there are so many people that are!
I have family members and friends that have had a tough time getting pregnant. They WANT children and they can't have them! Are you kidding me? I know that a women has a right to do with her body what she pleases, but PLEASE, be responsible and mature and step up to the plate if necessary.
I have two children of my own that I hug and kiss everyday, probably more than they want to be kissed, but WOW, they are amazing. I love them!
Children are our next generation and according to this article, we got rid of 47 million babies in 36 years. Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else?
Posted by "Michelle Regnerus" on February 13, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
I agree with the pro life stand. People should take responsibility for their actions. If in the end they feel they can not raise the child adoption is always a choice.
I know couples who would love to raise and care for a child but can not have children normally. These "unwanted" children could have the chance to grow up in a Christian home and be loved by parents who want them. Adoption is a much better place to end up than in some doctor's office trash.
Also, if you don't feel that you are ready for the responsibility of parenthood then you should not be engaging in actions that could lead to that. Only participate in things that you are willing to pay the consequences for.
Caruthers
Posted by "Sydney Carlson" on February 13, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
I agree with this points, but this is still only one side of the issue. ...The other side has good points too. ... (see my comment on Nigel's article if its been posted yet)
Posted by "Rainey Hayes" on February 12, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
I think that the problem with abortion is a few things. ... Like Molly said, girls can now go in and have a huge medical procedure done without the parents knowing a single thing about it. But the law states we have to have a note saying it is OK to get an advil. What is wrong with that?
And I think responsibility is a huge thing here! If a girl thinks she is not ready to have a child that she has to take care of, but is ready to get into a relationship serious enough that the possibility she will get pregnant is there, she is mistaking.
A girl should make sure she is capable of handling and taking care of a kid BEFORE she gets into that kind of relationship with a person.
A girl should have to take care of that kid AND hold responsibility for her actions that may lead to that. If she is not responsible she should monitor her actions so something she is not ready for, does not happen.
GIRLS...GROW UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!
Posted by "Molly Griffin" on February 10, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
I cannot agree more.
And can I also add how ridiculous it is that I can, without anyone knowing, have an abortion, a surgical procedure which can KILL me, yet am required to have parent permission to take Advil at school?
What's wrong with that picture?
Posted by "Trevor Bodi" on February 10, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
If you think about it because of abortion we are killing potential geniuses. If Beethoven's mother knew he was going to go deaf and had an abortion, who else would've been able to compose what he did and also play what he played.
All these abortions are sad. What if a talent like Micheal Jackson was gonna be born but then because of fear the mother took that one little baby away from the world. That's what I think of when abortions happen, we are killing our potential Jimi Hendrix or our next John Lennon people that not only revolutionized music but showed the world a thing or to.
Posted by "Anu Sharma" on April 22, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
Asking us to imagine what it would feel like if a certain talent or family member wasn't born because they were aborted seems flawed-we have no way of knowing what any potential human being is here to do, and linking their worth to how accomplished they are contradicts the pro-life belief that all life is valuable.
Another problem I have with the author?s ideas is that they often deny the reality of life for many women in all parts of the world that are struggling with poverty and trying to keep up with the demands of a growing family.
Couple that with broken families, ignorance due to lack of resources and education, hormones/and or natural need for love that young people have esp. those that come from 'broken' families, and you have a vicious cycle that punishes people through no fault of their own.
On top of that, asking governments to further this inequality by restricting safe and legal abortions seems hypocritical in light of the fact that this position is very anti-life to the very people whose abilities to provide are already compromised.
And to those that point to alternatives like adoption, have they seen the realities of our current system where so many unwanted children exist and are shuttled between foster families? If people truly cared about life, then instead of self righteously opining about valuing unborn life, why not value life that is already here?
We have very real problems about providing and caring for people that are already here and suffering-what about arousing our righteousness to care for and protect these people? How about passionately dealing with poverty, illness, addiction, and war that are blighting the lives of so many people?
In short, I think people need to do a reality check before they make up their minds about anything. Using emotional yet flawed arguments may be a clever way to convince people of ultimately flawed theories that wreak devastating impact to real people?s life.
A trip to any third world country would be one way to start seeing this reality.