But that doesn't do anything to address the fact that sometimes, going through with a pregnancy will result in the death of the mother and/or the child. In that case, and only those cases, I would continue to support abortion, as I do now.
You do realize that very few abortions are actually performed for a legitimate health reason, right?
Look...if I shoot some dude dead, I will have to satisfy a jury (or at least, the solicitor) that I did so because he was a
threat to my life.
Maybe holding abortion to the same standard wouldn't be quite so unreasonable, especially since we're talking about a
baby here, not an adult criminal.
(general rant follows, fair warning)
I hate to tell some of you, but we're talking about
two lives here, and it isn't
all about you and what
you want or need. You ought to have to have a pretty good reason before killing a baby.
We (everyone) villify women like Susan Smith, who killed her own children, yet let someone dare say that maybe, just maybe, you ought to have a good reason before being allowed to kill your unborn child and people act as if you are some kind of idiot.
It gets tiresome. It isn't a tumor, it isn't a mouse, it is a
baby. So maybe in the first few weeks in doesn't look much like one, so what... should we be allowed to kill newborns for the crime of being deformed or ugly? So for the first few weeks it doesn't have enough brain to be sentient... if you fricking
leave it alone for a few months it WILL be sentient!
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to get an abortion for a legitimate risk to your life... I'm just saying that it
isn't so damn unreasonable to ask someone to provide a decent
reason before allowing them to end the life of the baby in their womb.
It blows my mind that so many of the same people who agonize over the issue of putting a murderer to death, who badmouth the military because once in a while civilians in the middle of a war-zone get killed, don't bat an eye over putting an unborn baby to death with no need for any reason other than "mommy doesn't want me."
It isn't arrogant to expect someone to provide a damn
reason why before allowing them to kill their baby. So it's in your womb... location doesn't alter humanity. So it's dependent on your body... a baby will be dependent on
someone for their life for many years; a sick person may be dependent on hospital staff until they get better. These are not good arguments.
If it's nobody's business if you have an abortion, or whether you have a good reason for it, then it's nobody's business that Susan Smith decided to kill her children or why. Both events
end innocent human life.
A man is held liable for 18 years of child support, whether he wanted a baby or not... "well, you had sex with her, you should have known she could get pregnant!" Yet asking a woman to tolerate a baby depending on her for just 9
months for the same reason, unless she has a good reason why not, is arrogant and tyrannical. What hypocrisy.
One day a spot on a stick turns blue and a woman says "I have an unwanted
non-human lump of tissue in my womb, which I will have removed through abortion because I don't want to be pregnant right now. This is not a baby, and it's nobody's business but mine." Some years later another strip turns blue for that
same woman, and she says "Oh I'm so happy, I'm having a
baby! There's a
life growing inside of me! My boyfriend doesn't want a baby though, but screw him, I'll make him pay child support anyway. Isn't everyone so happy for me?"
Honestly, does nobody see just a bit of a contradiction there?? The inconsistent hypocrisy of it makes my blood boil.
(end rant. We now return to your normal, mild-mannered Goshin.)
