...but I disagree.
See when it comes to matters of right and wrong in a nation founded on freedom, I think I've got a right to this opinion. Moreover, my opponents have an equal right to theirs.
I don't own a motorcycle, but no one cares that I have an opinion on helmet laws. I can never be a pro football player, but no one cares that I have an opinion on the collective bargaining agreement and lastly, I'm not homeless, but I'm permitted by all to have opinions on welfare law.
Today won't be so easy because 37 years ago today the US Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling by voting 7-2 in favor of a once anonymous woman known as Jane Roe. I don't have ovaries...but I have an opinion.
This case, and really more importantly the companion case of Doe vs. Dobson, legalized abortion in America.
This is not an easy issue. It is not a pretty issue. It is however an important issue.
I won't bother here with a drawn out argument of why I believe that life begins at conception. I won't go into the horrible horrible ways that babies are killed in the womb (or sometimes half out of it).
What I wanted to talk about is what this means for society. Instead I ran out of time during lunch.
The great crime here is the cold blooded killing, or termination to be PC, of fetuses.
Abortion isn't new. America didn't invent it. It probably even goes back longer than recorded history.
Long story short I believe abortion is wrong but I don't have time to tell you why right now.
One issue is the insane number of abortions that occur. Check out these stats from the Guttmacher Institute.
----
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69 among blacks and 54 among Hispanics are unintended. In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.
Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33 of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24.
Among U.S. women having abortions in 2002, about one-half had already had a prior abortion.
----
We decided as a society and sex is more important than life. Separating the two was not just a mistake, but something that should be considered unthinkable.
I pray one day that the people of this country, not just the courts, see the error of their ways.
(Kudos to Karyn Stegeman for the blog idea and my apologies it doesn't do the topic justice.)
I'll offer you some counter arguments, though I myself could never do abortion if I got a girl pregnant. There are some great counter arguments, though, that leaves me stuck on the fence for abortion.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of valuing life is controversial. On one end of the spectrum you have the idea "Life starts at conception" in which life grows from a fertilized egg. Yet, look at the statistics: 40% white, 69% black, 54% hispanic are unintended. And I don't think I need to tell you the percentage of those that couldn't give the kid a good life even if they were born.
Did you know crime statistics will go up if abortion is made legal? When people live in poverty and have children, those children are raised with the same ideology the parents have. If the parents can't stop their bodily urges, they will have more kids. The more kids they have the more strain it is to take care of them. On top of that, the amount of money it would take for the government to help these people is astronomical.
So the question then becomes: is life valuable if the person suffers during its entirety? Is it valuable if the person will make others suffer?
Of course, then you have to look at those who beat the odds. I know plenty who have worked harder than some of the smartest kids I've known, just to make it through. But they aren't the majority. Do a few make it worth the while to allow more than enough others to suffer?
The question isn't "Is it life or not?" any more. The question is "What's the better outcome of this for society?"
I disagree. To say it's a simple matter of "sex over life" is a demonizing statement. It's not that. It's a statement of freedom. I, personally, do not believe life begins at conception. Life begins at sentient thought. And I just love how people who are against abortion are usually the same people who are against welfare. Against helping single mothers or struggling families. Force them to have an unwanted child then deny to help them after you've (not you, the universal 'you') forced your beliefs on them to carry it through.
ReplyDeleteSo, instead, people seem to think that the solution is 'if you don't plan to have babies, you aren't allowed to have sex.' I call bullshit on that. Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness whatever it may come. Also, do you actually think making it illegal is going to make it stop? Not in the least. All that's going to do is make desperate, determined people find other, unsafe ways to do it. Not only ending the pregnancy but doing great harm to themselves. Imagine a guy in a back alley somewhere brutalizing a woman because she had nowhere else to go. Imagine him charging her money for this and her living with the scars mentally and physically her entire life.
You are entitled to your opinion and it is an iffy topic, but there is a time and a place for beliefs and then there is a time for medical and scientific facts. Legalizing means it could be moderated. There can be laws. Scruples. Safe practices and maybe even ways to help a woman decide rather than casting her out to the winds.
This was worthy reading.
ReplyDeletekirbyfox,
ReplyDeleteThe issue with your argument is that you are making yourself the judge of whether a life is acceptable or worthy.
You ask "is life valuable if the person suffers during its entirety?"
That is a question that we don't get to answer. I know people that wouldn't want to live in a wheelechair, but then I've known people in wheelchairs that live great worthy lives. Also there is adoption and even as you said the chance that a kid rises up from their own situation. Who are you or I to say the kid doesn't deserve a chance?
heerofan,
I'm against abortion but not against welfare. I'm against welfare abuse, but that's another topic.
You say "Life begins at sentient thought." But then when is that? A newborn baby is no more capable of thought than it was 5 minutes earlier in the womb. It is legal (federally, different states have different laws) to abort a baby up until it is delivered. If sentient thought occurs after that, your view opens the door to infanticide.
You add, "Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness whatever it may come."
But the government has laws against crack, heroin, bigamy, public nudity etc. These are all things that could make some people happy, but society recognized they aren't very good things. And still they happen in back alleys just as abortion did and would again if it were illegal. The issue is it being legal is essentially sanctioning the practice.
Sex and life have been intertwined since the beginning of time. Only in the last maybe 200 years of humans' 4.4 million has there been anywhere near reliable contraception.
My views on sex and procreation come down to my faith. I also oppose contraceptives and am against premarital sex but I don't impose that on anyone as engaging in those things are only sinful (again from my beliefs) to the individuals whereas abortion is killing an innocent person.
Abortion isn't legal as a last chance means to save a woman dying in childbirth or to allow rape victims to avoid carrying a rapists child. Those account for less than 1 percent of abortions and I would be in favor of laws that truly limited it to that.
It's legal because people don't want to be responsible (either morally or by using contraceptive properly) for themselves and they need an out.
If you have sex, you know that can lead to a child. If you didn't use the pill, wear a condom or at the very least make the guy pull out and after that you didn't grab you one of those (non-abortifant) morning after pills, you've made your own series of bad choices.
At that point if you are pregnant there is a new life present and it has rights same as you or me.
As for helping women, there is lots of help for them. The Catholic church operates all kinds of pregnancy centers for support with information on getting support and health care for during and after pregnancy as well as info on adoption.
Some woman I don't know and likely never will faced that choice 29 years ago and because they chose adoption I have my sister Karyn. Someone making that choice also gave me one of my cousins.
I just can't see how anyone could have made the decision that they didn't deserve a chance at life.
But we all have our own views and are entitled to them.
Apparently this will let me post now. Huzzah.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, in response to the first commenter up there: Are you saying it's better to not give a child a chance at all, rather than assume all of them will end up as criminals? There are plenty of people who pull themselves up from nothing and make decent lives. And there is no evidence to say an unwanted pregnancy always leads to an unloved child. And in the case where a parent can not care for their child, there is adoption. Thousands of prospective parents wait years to adopt a baby. But either way, I think it's a disturbing thought to condemn a person before they're even born and determine that they will be "unfit" for society and thus deny them a chance.
To the second commenter: Life begins at sentient thought? Really, when is that? Twelve months? Eighteen? Twenty-four? I could argue that I still know some people that don't think. But tell me, your one year old baby obviously does not possess sentient thought. It doesn't know right from wrong, it cannot voice an opinion. Since that one year old baby doesn't think like we do, does that mean it should be legal to kill it?
Also "we people" are NOT against welfare. I personally am against the ABUSE of the welfare system: women who purposely get pregnant to AVOID having to work and attempting to live off of the government forever. That being said there are plenty of people that gratefully take the offered help and DO work to provide a better life for themselves and their children.
It is also ridiculous to think that every single woman that goes in for an abortion now will run to a back alley if abortion were made illegal again. Was the count of abortions the 38 or some years before Roe v. Wade even close to what they have been since? I seriously doubt it. If anything making abortion illegal again would hopefully make women THINK more about their decisions. I personally do not care whether people intend to have sex outside of marriage. I personally would not, but that's me. However people need to accept the consequences and realize that the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sex. I think I got a bit off topic there. Anyway, my bottom line is that if abortion were illegal, there would NOT be 50-million women running to back alleys to have abortions. Not to mention if abortion were made illegal, that would of course not include life saving procedures for a mother who's life is endangered by something like an ectopic pregnancy.
Also John, I'm not 29 yet. Kthx.
One of the best ways to prevent abortions is to cut it off at its source. I am talking about, of course, unwanted pregnancies. So, how do we go about accomplishing a decrease in the number of knocked-up bimbos?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is really quite simple. The implementation of superior sex education should be the remedy we need. If we approach sex ed from a common sense perspective, as opposed to the abstinence-only malarkey the Right is so fond off, then the number of unwanted pregnancies should go down, as younger individuals become more aware of how to protect themselves.
Naturally, I am talking about Comprehensive Sex Education. Yes, Little Timmy will have to learn the proper use of a condom. Scary stuff, I know. Nevertheless, we must take into consideration that abstinence-only advocates are fighting a futile war against the biological makeup of the human being. We are chemically programed to propagate the species, and willpower can only go a short way in combating one of our strongest bodily urges.
Finally, I believe schools should make condoms readily available for students. Please do not see this as condoning adolescent sex. The kids are going to experiment with or without the condoms. It is a far more sensible decision to make protection easily accessible.
Matt (Monkey)
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. I don't support the use of contraception but it's use is a lesser sin than murder in my book.
Abstinence-based sex ed is ok, abstinence included sex ed is better but studies show abstinence only doesn't work at all.
That said, abstinence promoting groups have a place. They should be active in spreading the message that waiting is best to the youth, that just can't be the only thing the kids learn in school.
As Christians we struggle against our biological makeup and sinful nature everyday, it's not a futile struggle, but you are right it isn't for the class room.
The question of handing the condoms out is dicier. What grade do you start? What do you do if a second graders comes to get one? Or a sixth grader? You can't tell parents, otherwise the kids won't use them. In that case you're asking the school to become aware of who is sexually active and not tell parents. That's a tough sell.
Also, the Right is correct about one thing, give a boy a condom, he's going to want to use it. This will likely increase premarital sex, a bad thing. Nevertheless the long term good may outweigh the bad.
"I don't support the use of contraception but it's use is a lesser sin than murder in my book."
ReplyDeleteYou are such a tool.
My hatred for you has no bounds. Before I tried to your faith as an idle amusement. Now I dedicate myself to it's complete annihilation. Life has no meaning for me but to destroy your love for what is sacred and pure. It will be lifted clean from the stream of history. I will turn it into gas and pour it into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of it. Not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. It will be annihilated from your past as well as your future. It will have never existed.
Luv ya,
D
Yes, there is a place for abstinence. It's the best way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STDs....or STIs...or whatever the hell the medical community wants to call them. Nevertheless, abstinence-only sex education willfully tries to leave the student ignorant on the subject, and is a blatant attempt of the religious Right to force their ideology on the nation's youth. Comprehensive sex education is meant to be unbiased. Of course, we seem to be on the same page in regard to this matter.
ReplyDeleteI believe it makes the most sense to provide condoms for high school students. The majority of minors engaging in sexual intercourse usually start around the age of seventeen.
Minors have their own rights to privacy, and parents are not entitled to be informed about every aspect of their child's life. I know there was and still is a great deal of Congressional debate over the confidentiality of prescribing contraceptives to minors. However, condoms do not require a prescription to obtain.
Give a boy a condom and he's going to want to use it. Good! That's the goal. It is infinitely better for a teenager to have this form of protection readily available than to rely on less effective measures, such as pulling out. Or, even worse, putting his or her trust in silly myths, such as the belief that a virgin girl cannot get pregnant her first time.
Increase premarital sex? Do you mean increase the frequency in which a couple engages in premarital sex or increase the likelihood that people will opt to lose their virginity out of wedlock? The former could very well happen, but what should you care? According to Christianity the couple have already committed a sin just by having sex one time. What does it matter if they screw one time or fifty-two times? The one time should hypothetically be enough to condemn them to Hell, right?
The latter is also possible, but how many teenagers who actually want to have sex choose to forgo it because they can't get a free condom? I am willing to bet the percentage is insignificant.
Where the hell did my comment go? How does it just go about disappearing? I left a comment here just a little while ago and now it's gone. Did you delete it, John?
ReplyDelete...Let's try this again.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a place for abstinence. It is by far the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. However, abstinence-only sex education is an ineffective policy meant to leave students ignorant of their options and force the ideology of the religious Right on the nation's youth. Comprehensive sex education is meant to be unbiased. Of course, we seem to have an agreement on this point.
I believe we should make condoms available for high school students. The majority of teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse usually start around the age of seventeen. Most girls will have started their period around their entry into high school and the increased number of sexually active people will exacerbate the threat of STDs.
Minors have some right to privacy as well. This means that parents are not entitled to know about everything going on in their child's life. Now, I know there was and still is a fair amount of Congressional debate over the confidentiality of prescribing contraceptives to minors; however, condoms obviously do not require a prescription.
Give a boy a condom and he's going to want to use it. Good! That's the whole plan. It is infinitely better for him to use a condom than have to rely on risky alternatives, such as pulling out. Or, even worse, having to place his faith on silly myths, such as the belief that virgin girls cannot get pregnant their first time.
Increase premarital sex? Do you mean it will increase the number of times a couple engages in premarital sex or increase the likelihood a virgin will have sex out of wedlock? The former could very well happen, but why should you care? According to the Christian perspective this couple committed a sin the very first time they messed around. Why should it matter if they do it one time or fifty-two times? They should hypothetically be destined for Hell the very first time, right?
The latter is also a possibility, but how many teenagers who actually want to have sex are going to opt out because they can't get a free condom? I am willing to bet the percentage is insignificant.
...Let's try this again.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a place for abstinence. It is by far the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. However, abstinence-only sex education is an ineffective policy meant to leave students ignorant of their options and force the ideology of the religious Right on the nation's youth. Comprehensive sex education is meant to be unbiased. Of course, we seem to have an agreement on this point.
I believe we should make condoms available for high school students. The majority of teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse usually start around the age of seventeen. Most girls will have started their period around their entry into high school and the increased number of sexually active people will exacerbate the threat of STDs.
Minors have some right to privacy as well. This means that parents are not entitled to know about everything going on in their child's life. Now, I know there was and still is a fair amount of Congressional debate over the confidentiality of prescribing contraceptives to minors; however, condoms obviously do not require a prescription.
Give a boy a condom and he's going to want to use it. Good! That's the whole plan. It is infinitely better for him to use a condom than have to rely on risky alternatives, such as pulling out. Or, even worse, having to place his faith on silly myths, such as the belief that virgin girls cannot get pregnant their first time.
Increase premarital sex? Do you mean it will increase the number of times a couple engages in premarital sex or increase the likelihood a virgin will have sex out of wedlock? The former could very well happen, but why should you care? According to the Christian perspective this couple committed a sin the very first time they messed around. Why should it matter if they do it one time or fifty-two times? They should hypothetically be destined for Hell the very first time, right?
The latter is also a possibility, but how many teenagers who actually want to have sex are going to opt out because they can't get a free condom? I am willing to bet the percentage is insignificant.
Fuck
ReplyDeleteBlogspot doesn't seem to like something about my comment, but apparently the world "fuck" is ok?
ReplyDelete...Let's try this again.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a place for abstinence. It is by far the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. However, abstinence-only sex education is an ineffective policy meant to leave students ignorant of their options and force the ideology of the religious Right on the nation's youth. Comprehensive sex education is meant to be unbiased. Of course, we seem to have an agreement on this point.
I believe we should make condoms available for high school students. The majority of teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse usually start around the age of seventeen. Most girls will have started their period around their entry into high school and the increased number of sexually active people will exacerbate the threat of STDs.
Minors have some right to privacy as well. This means that parents are not entitled to know about everything going on in their child's life. Now, I know there was and still is a fair amount of Congressional debate over the confidentiality of prescribing contraceptives to minors; however, condoms obviously do not require a prescription.
Give a boy a condom and he's going to want to use it. Good! That's the whole plan. It is infinitely better for him to use a condom than have to rely on risky alternatives, such as pulling out. Or, even worse, having to place his faith on silly myths, such as the belief that virgin girls cannot get pregnant their first time.
Increase premarital sex? Do you mean it will increase the number of times a couple engages in premarital sex or increase the likelihood a virgin will have sex out of wedlock? The former could very well happen, but why should you care? According to the Christian perspective this couple committed a sin the very first time they messed around. Why should it matter if they do it one time or fifty-two times? They should hypothetically be destined for Hell the very first time, right?
The latter is also a possibility, but how many teenagers who actually want to have sex are going to opt out because they can't get a free condom? I am willing to bet the percentage is insignificant.
...Let's try this again.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a place for abstinence. It is by far the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spreading of STDs. However, abstinence-only sex education is an ineffective policy meant to leave students ignorant of their options and force the ideology of the religious Right on the nation's youth. Comprehensive sex education is meant to be unbiased. Of course, we seem to have an agreement on this point.
I believe we should make condoms available for high school students. The majority of teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse usually start around the age of seventeen. Most girls will have started their period around their entry into high school and the increased number of sexually active people will exacerbate the threat of STDs.
Minors have some right to privacy as well. This means that parents are not entitled to know about everything going on in their child's life. Now, I know there was and still is a fair amount of Congressional debate over the confidentiality of prescribing contraceptives to minors; however, condoms obviously do not require a prescription.
Give a boy a condom and he's going to want to use it. Good! That's the whole plan. It is infinitely better for him to use a condom than have to rely on risky alternatives, such as pulling out. Or, even worse, having to place his faith on silly myths, such as the belief that virgin girls cannot get pregnant their first time.
Increase premarital sex? Do you mean it will increase the number of times a couple engages in premarital sex or increase the likelihood a virgin will have sex out of wedlock? The former could very well happen, but why should you care? According to the Christian perspective this couple committed a sin the very first time they messed around. Why should it matter if they do it one time or fifty-two times? They should hypothetically be destined for Hell the very first time, right?
The latter is also a possibility, but how many teenagers who actually want to have sex are going to opt out because they can't get a free condom? I am willing to bet the percentage is insignificant.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I agree with you as far as schools go. The proper form of education on this matter happens at home.
Well....great.
ReplyDeleteGuess we'll call it a day.