Monday, June 11, 2012

Abortion Debate

I don't really even understand how this is even a debate. It seems rather simple to me: 
Abortion became illegal in the late 19th century. 

As quoted from an article on 19th century abortion in Women's Health Issues magazine, "There were plenty of agents and materials available to induce abortion... Yet many proprietary potions did not actually terminate pregnancies. Women often resorted to using SHARP INSTRUMENTS, WAX CANDLES, PENHOLDERS WITH ATTACHED WIRES, GLASS RODS, HAIR CURLING TONGUES, STICKS, SPOONS, KNIVES, and CATHETERS" (Spring 1992).  Many of the women who had to resort to the crude methods mentioned above inadvertently died in the process or not long after when infection set in. The fact is that these women could not bear the thought of carrying the pregnancy to term and were so determined to abort that they  risked serious injury, illness, and death (by unintentional suicide) to rid themselves of the parasite.

As a teenager in the mid-late 1990s, I heard about girls throwing themselves down stairs, punching themselves in the gut, and even starting a fight in the hopes of getting beaten badly enough to cause a miscarriage. All just so their parents wouldn't find out they were sexually active. 

A few questions to consider:

  • How does it make sense to provide medical treatment to an addict on illegal drugs (a problem caused by the person suffering from it) and NOT to a woman who has been raped (a problem caused by someone other than the person suffering from it)?
  • What about all of the unwanted children that are already here?
  • What about the men creating these children with no intentions of supporting or raising them? Shouldn't both parties involved in creating the person be held equally accountable for their actions?
It's like the "pro-lifers" seem to believe that making abortion and/or contraceptives illegal will accomplish all of the following:
  • stop the unmarried from having sex
  • make the world a better place with more children in it
  • end rape and violence
  • re-establish the traditional family unit of a Mother, Father, and 2.5 kids
  • unite all people under Christianity 


  1. Human beings have sex for pleasure, not just reproduction.
  2. Most animal species do, too.
  3. Regardless of how long the human lifespan is, the natural stages of development do not change. Puberty has always begun around age 12 and ended in the early 20s.  
  4. Our attempts to lengthen childhood by keeping children naive (often misrepresented as "innocent") only serves to create unprepared teenagers that inevitably become ill-equipped adults.
  5. If sex is only permissible between 2 adults joined by marriage, then the penalties for purchasing the services of a prostitute AND committing adultery need to reflect a zero tolerance policy for the extra-marital activities historically pursued by men.
  6. Equality is when everyone agrees to follow the same rules. 


  1. While I do not disagree generally, I would like to note that it is very likely that sex for pleasure is "nature's" way of ensuring that one continues to propagate to fulfill what appears to be life's number one goal; to provide an ongoing existence for itself.
    Also, speaking of an accurate reflection and in the interest of eliminating complexities or hypocrisies, perhaps we should not rest an argument in favor of abortion on only extreme cases of rape. If it is murder, it always is and we should either embrace it for every case or none at all. By mentioning this, I m not attempting to moralize. As I implied, I don't view abortion as unacceptable. However it would not hurt to remove the distractions and be honest in the conversation.
    There are most definitely too many unwanted children as it is, and our world is vastly over-populated. Have you noticed that frequently the same people that are pro-life have little interest in investing in that life once it is out of the womb.
    Abortion as a topic in politics seems to be about votes, like so many others...How disingenuous. If people were having the conversation in the rational manner that you have employed here, perhaps it would seem real.
    PS: I hope that this did not come off as adversarial. I simply take great pleasure in conversation and thought streams.

  2. I've actually asked a pro-lifer that very question: If I find myself with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) and have the baby, will you raise it? At first, they gave me the usual adoption and anonymous baby drop-off laws.

    Me: Would you agree that children in the Child Welfare systems tend to have more psychological problems and more difficulties in life?

    Them: Yes

    Me: and that many of the convicted criminals in our prisons came from dysfunctional families or group home type environment?

    Them: Yes

    Me: Then why would you recommend putting more children into that system? Sounds like bringing the child into this world just so they can suffer a life where nobody cares.

    Them:, uh....abortions kill babies