Why must abortion be defended with unrealistic hypotheticals?

Question

The most common defense for abortion is "the health of the mother", but in reality only 4% of abortions are performed for that reason and 3% because of possible complications with the fetus (i.e. eugenics). Less than 0.5% is attributable to rape (another popular defense). The other 93% are for various matters of convenience.

So when Christendom seeks to defend the "unborn", the reasons are pretty clear. Why is it that the unChristian so often take refuge in that 4% rather than approaching the issue rationally?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Robin the Rockin' VT: Why would I personally take care of every orphan? It would be society's role to take care of the abandoned. Of course, since the institution of marriage has been destroyed, society would be inundated with them.

Rage of Achilles: Why are you equating death to murder?

[Vinyl] PG: But you have no problem adopting the reverse argument: Namely that the 93% (actually 96%) should be legalized for the sake of the 4%.

Jason: Pregnancy requires an act by the mother that knowingly begets pregnancy and, in more than 99.5% of the cases, is entirely willful.

poetica: I agree that murder is always a "choice".

Answer 1

Then are you going to personally take care of every baby that is born to parents that don't want it? Have you been to an orphanage lately? Did you take them all home or find homes for all of them? Do you offer financial support to any of them? No? Why?

I sponsor an orphanage in Korea, what do you do?

Answer 2

The trouble with propogandists and extremism (on either side) is that those people get so wrapped up in the what ifs, the theories and the hypotheses is that they ignore the fact that there are very real people who have to deal with the issue right then and now...and their butting in doesn't help one iota. The real question here is whether strangers should have the right to impose their wills and policies (laws) on another person, especially when the situation has nothing to do with the individual creating the law or policy.

That either/or thinking re: religious beliefs is weak...and does hold up theologically at all. You can't put everyone in the same box. Just as there are non-Christians who are against abortion, there are also people who are Christians who are pro-choice. Why? Because they believe in the Christian concept that God gave each person a free will. They feel that such a decision is between a woman and God, and no one else. Besides, nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that abortion is wrong. Abortions were not even made officially illegal for the most part until the late 19th and early 20th Century.

Some claim that the anti-abortion stance is tied in with the 10 Commandments. However, if one goes with the "thou shalt no kill" commandment argument, then that means it's also murder to go to war, to have capital punishment, to shoot someone robbing your house, to kill someone in self defense, to amputate a body part...or even to put an animal down or squash a bug on the pavement...so how extreme do you want to get on that?

Why not look at it this way, even the Virgin Mary had the choice as to whether to carry Jesus in the womb. She was taking a huge risk back in the days when an unmarried teenager was liable to be stoned to death (a thing that is still happening even today in some countries.). If you read the Gospel passages, God did not force the pregnancy upon her....she consented. "Be it done unto me according to thy word." So if Mary the mother of Jesus was allowed to have a choice...shouldn't other women have the same choice, too? I think so.

Also did you consider the possibility that maybe those allegedly "unrealistic hypotheticals" you refer to are the PRECISE reasons why some women have done it, only they don't tell the whole world about it???? Think about it...most women DO NOT announce the fact that they terminated a pregnancy...in most cases, they don't even want people to know they were pregnant. So how much sense would it make to say anything especially to total strangers? Also, how do you really know why the woman chose an abortion? Did you interview every individual woman coming out of a reproductive health clinic? I doubt it!

Also, it's a misnomer to assume "choice" means automatically having an abortion. Choice can also mean continuing a pregnancy despite a negative medical prognosis, or having the baby despite the negative circumstances under which the child was conceived...and there are women who have been raped who had chosen to continue the pregnancy, and then either kept the baby or placed the baby for adoption.

Personally, I couldn't do undergo an abortion (and I did have to face that question 22 years ago when my tubal ligation failed...I chose adoption), and yes, for that reason I tend to encourage adoption over terminating the pregnancy.... but I would not take that choice away from women by demanding that governments pass laws against it just the way some right wing fundamentalist are doing right now.

Abortion is not a curse...nor is it a sacrament. It's just a sad but sometimes medically or psychologically necessary alternative that should be kept legal so that more women do not die in the way like what was happening back in the days when abortion was illegal. Abortion is also something that NO male will ever understand what it's like to have to face or go through...so as far as I'm concerned they of all people have no right to be piping up about it anyway.

Answer 3

Funny though... around 85% of America claims to be Christian and yet Abortion is Legal.... So just who is "UNChristian" in this case really? I do believe this type of thing is voted on according to state. Last time something like this was voted on in Ohio and KY was to determine just WHEN Abortion is legal - in other words, a pregnant woman can not get an abortion after she has reached 3 months of pregnancy. So when you point that finger at the UNChristian, please realize, you are pointing that sucker right at the majority of Christians. Christianity is, after all, the majority in the US.

Now, as for "Of course, since the institution of marriage has been destroyed, society would be inundated with them." Again, the majority is Christian in the US... of which they also have the majority of divorces. When speaking out against this sort of thing... or even just pointing it out... all you are doing is showing just how UNChristian the Christians really are. Please keep this in mind when you decide to point your finger at those who support something you are against. Especially when you say things like "SO when Christendom seeks to defend the "unborn"" This only proves that you are not being logical nor fair in your argument at all. So why should someone listen to you?

Just how does the minority... that 10-15% of America that isn't Christian, get something like Abortion legalized when supposed "Christendom seeks to defend the unborn". The reasons are hardly "pretty clear". It's contradictory to say the least... and borderline hypocritical when you try to place blame on those of us who aren't Christian.

Heathen

Answer 4

I take issue with your idea that Christian = staunchly anti-choice and non-Christian = staunchly pro-choice. that's not how I experience it.

I'm a Christian and so is my wife, I'm anti-choice (with exceptions for rape and life of the mother) and she's pro-choice. For her it is an issue of women controlling the reproductive function of their bodies. [My argument against that is choosing to have sex is having control over the reproductive function and a pregnancy is a consequence of exercising that control.]

Anyway, at no time does her case and her defense ever come down to marginal cases. Kate Michelman, in her book And liberty and Justice For All, argues straight down the middle, as NARAL always does. Sarah Weddington (attorney for Roe) has on her website that benig able to choose abortion has nothing whatever to do with abortion, or the medical procedure, or mrginal cases. She says it is a philosophical statement that women should be have equal standing on decisions about family.

My favorite saying about abortion came from a very empathetic anti-choice person: "Women really don't usually choose abortion as care-free, freewheeling, selfish flappers. Women usually choose abortion the way a trapped animal chooses to gnaw its own leg off."

Answer 5

I just wanted to mention that the "unChristian" aren't necessarily advocates for elective abortions. I am a pro-life nonchristian. Even atheists can be pro-life. There are some from the Libertarians For Life group who have written some great arguments based on embryological and secular legal perspectives.

Answer 6

The fact is that there is no logical or ethical reason to be pro life. The entire pro life fantasy is contrived and based on untruthful assertions. (It primarily exists to raise money for shady organizations and to assert political power over weak minds.) For example, there is no Bibical support for the pro life agenda. The Bible is clear that we are to follow God and do his will. God aborts fetuses every day for logical and prudent reasons. He demands that we do no less.
And it is a fact that each time a fetus is "saved" it causes the death of born and loved chidren. Threre are 100 million children in need of adoption, that will not be adopted. Bringing an unwanted fetus into the world for adoption causes the death or discomfort of another child needing adoption. And 10 million kids will die this year from a lack of medical care. So bringing another child in the world will not help these kids and will likely lead to their death. The fact is that saving a fetus causes the death of as many as 12 loved and wanted kids.

Answer 7

Just because only 4 percent of abortions are done for the health of the mother, DOESN'T mean that you should outlaw abortion just because the percentage is too small. Why? So we can let those 4 percent DIE and the baby can have a horrible life? Funny, you anti-abortion people don't THINK of the baby's life after birth.

My aunt died because she was not allowed to get an abortion, in childbirth, and my mother had to get an abortion lest the same thing happen to her (for her second child).

Would you rather have a child living in a foster home, most likely being abused and wondering why their mother gave them up, than simply aborting the child so it never has to experience a loveless upbringing?

That's pretty selfish.

EDIT: Wow. So, if a mother can't take care of a child and is forced to put it into an orphanage simply because she couldn't abort it, it's up for the GOVERNMENT to take care of it, and not the people who fought so hard to keep the damn baby alive? Just goes to show you: people are all ready to stand up for a cause, but they shy away from the consequences.

EDIT: No, I don't have any problem adopting the reverse. If it helps people, regardless, it's fine. You seem to forget that there's about 6 billion humans, and LOTS of people that DON'T get abortions. We're not exactly hard-up as far as procreation goes...

Answer 8

I don't. That's why I'm pro-life for the most part. The only way I'd ever be pro-choice is if the mothers' health was at risk, or if the baby had a crippling disease that would allow it to suffer once it was born (or rape cases, of course).

But abortion is unacceptable when it's a matter of convenience. I value life too much for people to blindly take it away for their own benefit.

Answer 9

The point of the argument is that even if it only helps a small percentage of those who use the right, it is better then not having the right. Yes, you might stop many abortions that are not because of health or rape or incest, but you would also be stopping those that are for health or rape or incest. It's like saying that we should stop using DNA evidence in trials because it only is useful a small percentage of the time. Or maybe we should not have free speech, because only about 1% of the poeple have something useful to say. Now this is not the only argument for the right, but you have to understand the point of this argument.

Answer 10

Utter embarrassment..
So called "pro-life" activist misses the point once again.
Why should women who wants to terminate pregnancy continue to bear the fetus to deliver the baby later? It is not her will to lend her body to anyone and she doesn't have to. Women are not baby making machines. Please understand that.

-- edit --
empanada said
<>

Once again, you've missed the point.
Whether a woman wanted the pregnancy or not initially or it was all accidental, all these presupposed conditions the woman was in before pregnancy has nothing to do with getting abortion later.

What kind of authoritarian dictatorship do you want over these pregnant women? She can't even make her own decision regarding her OWN belly ?
Your justification fails again. Try again.
And I would appreciate it if you cite the source of the figure "99.5%"

Answer 11

What of Spontaneous Abortion?

I am not, follow the link.

I am prolife: I despise the death penalty and abortion. My BC belief system equated conception as the start of life.

That is why I am pro choice. Back alley abortions were botched quite often.