Abortion: The Argument No One Can Win
A brief discussion of the reality of abortion before Roe v. Wade for those not old enough to remember, and why the neither side can or should attempt to force their opponents to abandon religious and moral beliefs to comply with the demands of the other side.
If you turn the clock back to before Roe v. Wade and do away with the religious freedom and other freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, you will be forcing your sisters, daughters, mothers, and friends to seek out back-alley quacks who are likely to kill your loved ones, those who believed themselves to be in situations desperate enough to risk their lives to not be pregnant.
And tell me, please, if you would love a child born to your daughter if the father was a mentally deranged, genetically damaged, drug addicted, sexual predator as much as you would love the child born to your daughter and her husband, within a happy (or at least, legal) marriage.
My mother learned she was pregnant with me not long before she learned my father’s heart condition had worsened and he probably had not more than a year or two to live. In 1940, she went to a reputable doctor to have a ‘tumor’ removed. She believed she had let the doctor know the true nature of the tumor. In 1940, the great majority of married women worked only in the home. My mother had little education, virtually no work experience, and no marketable skills. She wasn’t sure she could get a job to support herself and my older sister, let alone a new baby. She was, in fact, quite terrified.
The doctor either misunderstood what she wanted or was pro-life long before that label existed. I am convinced that if he had complied with my mother’s wishes, I would not have known the difference. I’m happy he didn’t abort me, whatever his reason. And I’m not sure I would have made a decision different from my mother’s, had I ever found myself in the same situation.
I don’t believe the pro-life versus pro-choice argument is necessary or useful. For the fanatics on both sides, you should understand that you will never convert your opponents to your opinion, your beliefs. Don’t demonstrate your opposition by killing those who disagree with you. Not only is it the antithesis of what you’re preaching but, based on my understanding of religion, is the antithesis of what most of the hundreds of different religious denominations and sects teach is the path to salvation.
You cannot stop a practice as ancient as mankind itself. You can only force the desperate to once again—in the twenty-first century—resort to dangerous and primitive solutions. I believe that would be an even greater sin!
Liked it


-
Post Commentducroisjosef
On August 28, 2009 at 3:47 am
That was amazingly well written. It was an effective appeal to emotion, but not an effective argument for destroying human life. You speak of pro-life supporters not knowing when a group of cells becomes truly human. If they don’t know then neither do you, it can be equally argued that this is potentially murdering a human life, as it is destroying a potential human life. I would have more respect for people who argue for abortion if they would say that they are comfortable with the idea of potentially killing babies if it means gaining such a degree of convenience. That would be intellectually honest, and could be argued against effectively. I for one think the conversation isn’t over. You say otherwise, but you did write this, and amazingly well, once again.