emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- 23,669
- 4,181
The biggest myth about abortion that you probably believe is true
According to this article, the biggest myth about abortion concerns
which poses more risk of danger: abortion or natural birth.
The answer given is that abortion is safer than birth.
But of course, that only counts certain circumstances concerning the MOTHER.
It doesn't compare the consequences of the unborn child.
Of course, there are cases where the child may be better off dead.
But what percentage of abortions are those?
Also, this doesn't count the MENTAL HEALTH risks of post abortion syndrome.
But just the bias of focusing on the mother and not counting the unborn child
is what makes liberals look like they are pushing murder and dehumanizing
the child in order to justify abortion.
No wonder liberals look insane, dehumanizing the life of the unborn child,
then turning around and trying to argue for the value of life of the criminally ill people on death row.
At least the Catholics who argue ALL life is sacred and up to God to give or take
- ie no war, no abortion, no death penalty, no murder, no euthanasia/assisted termination -
are CONSISTENT.
OMG I just groaned when I read this.
The arguments I will support for prochoice are
* that laws that seek to criminalize or ban abortion unequally affect and punish women more than men instead of holding both partners equally responsible for any abuse that occurred or caused the situation (relationship abuse, coercion, relationship fraud, breach of contract, sex abuse or other actions that lead to unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion). Given that the male partners are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, if not MORE responsible in the case of rape or other coercion, this is why the laws are contested as unfair to put the legal burden all on the woman.
* extending the right to life to include unborn is a faith based belief
that is up to people to choose freely and not for govt to legislate for people
UNLESS the people CONSENT to a law (such as how we consent to laws making murder illegal)
* all the people and activism now that is prolife and successfully works to prevent abortion is based on FREE CHOICE, public education, and support for alternatives. None of this requires a ban by govt to teach people to be prolife and to prevent abortion at all costs. So if prolife advocates can reach this level of understanding by free choice, not force of law, then all people should have the same freedom. (For this reason, I believe more prochoice activists should support and work side by side with prolife groups, instead of fighting against them, because the responsibility for informed choices and support for alternatives to prevent abortion is NECESSARY to protect free choice from coercion by ignorance or social or financial pressure into abortion if that isn't natural or right for people.)
Because both prochoice and prolife beliefs are equally faith based and up to people to choose freely, then technically the govt cannot pass laws that violate one belief or the other without
violating Constitutional equal protections.
Thus I argue that laws should be written and passed by consensus where faith based issues
are involved, such as whether life begins at conception that is faith based or whether
the life of unborn children count legally as persons which is a political belief.
By the same First Amendment right NOT to have govt establish and impose these beliefs,
these beliefs cannot be abridged or denied by govt either.
That is why consensus on law is necessary to prevent abridging one sides' beliefs or the others.
According to this article, the biggest myth about abortion concerns
which poses more risk of danger: abortion or natural birth.
The answer given is that abortion is safer than birth.
But of course, that only counts certain circumstances concerning the MOTHER.
It doesn't compare the consequences of the unborn child.
Of course, there are cases where the child may be better off dead.
But what percentage of abortions are those?
Also, this doesn't count the MENTAL HEALTH risks of post abortion syndrome.
But just the bias of focusing on the mother and not counting the unborn child
is what makes liberals look like they are pushing murder and dehumanizing
the child in order to justify abortion.
No wonder liberals look insane, dehumanizing the life of the unborn child,
then turning around and trying to argue for the value of life of the criminally ill people on death row.
At least the Catholics who argue ALL life is sacred and up to God to give or take
- ie no war, no abortion, no death penalty, no murder, no euthanasia/assisted termination -
are CONSISTENT.
OMG I just groaned when I read this.
The arguments I will support for prochoice are
* that laws that seek to criminalize or ban abortion unequally affect and punish women more than men instead of holding both partners equally responsible for any abuse that occurred or caused the situation (relationship abuse, coercion, relationship fraud, breach of contract, sex abuse or other actions that lead to unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion). Given that the male partners are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, if not MORE responsible in the case of rape or other coercion, this is why the laws are contested as unfair to put the legal burden all on the woman.
* extending the right to life to include unborn is a faith based belief
that is up to people to choose freely and not for govt to legislate for people
UNLESS the people CONSENT to a law (such as how we consent to laws making murder illegal)
* all the people and activism now that is prolife and successfully works to prevent abortion is based on FREE CHOICE, public education, and support for alternatives. None of this requires a ban by govt to teach people to be prolife and to prevent abortion at all costs. So if prolife advocates can reach this level of understanding by free choice, not force of law, then all people should have the same freedom. (For this reason, I believe more prochoice activists should support and work side by side with prolife groups, instead of fighting against them, because the responsibility for informed choices and support for alternatives to prevent abortion is NECESSARY to protect free choice from coercion by ignorance or social or financial pressure into abortion if that isn't natural or right for people.)
Because both prochoice and prolife beliefs are equally faith based and up to people to choose freely, then technically the govt cannot pass laws that violate one belief or the other without
violating Constitutional equal protections.
Thus I argue that laws should be written and passed by consensus where faith based issues
are involved, such as whether life begins at conception that is faith based or whether
the life of unborn children count legally as persons which is a political belief.
By the same First Amendment right NOT to have govt establish and impose these beliefs,
these beliefs cannot be abridged or denied by govt either.
That is why consensus on law is necessary to prevent abridging one sides' beliefs or the others.
Last edited:
