Inspired by my recent post about SGK stopping its funding of Planned Parenthood because it is under investigation by a pro-life congressman who wants to ultimately shut down Planned Parenthood because it is known for performing abortions (which have been legal in this country since 1973).
- Republicans want the government to stay out of individuals’ lives and decisions. How does abortion not qualify as an individual decision?
- Republicans dislike spending money on welfare. A welfare recipient receives somewhere around $200–$300 a month if they have a child. Multiply that by 18 years, and the government has spent $54,000 to help raise a child. An abortion is a bargain, relatively speaking.
- Abortion didn’t become legal in this country for no good reason.
- If abortion were illegal, who would government pay to enforce said law? Would they prosecute all women who had miscarriages, or accidents that lead to miscarriage?
- Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers are big fans of the Constitution. The first Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” With that in mind, Congress shall make no laws based on religiously-inspired ideology. How would Christians react if Congress passed a law requiring all males (regardless of age) to get circumcised? They would cry that Jews and Muslims cannot force their religious beliefs and requirements onto the general population. Just because one person believes that life begins at conception, another may not. Why must the life-at-conception person force his beliefs onto someone that doesn’t share that belief?
- Republicans have pushed an abstinence-only sex education in public schools. This approach has increased, not decreased the number of unplanned teen pregnancies.
- Female strangers are not making men’s health decisions for men. Why should men (in Washington) be making these same decisions for women everywhere?
- If abortion were limited to only women who were assaulted or raped (not including women whose lives would be in danger), the number of false accusations in this country would skyrocket. Do Republicans want to pay for the extra detectives this law would surely require? What about the men this would unfairly impact? Right now, once a name goes on the sex offenders list, it is exceedingly difficult to get it removed. So now the woman has had her abortion, but what about the male life she has destroyed? Would that be fair?
- Generally speaking, abortions do not reduce the overall number of children that American women will have. To imply that if abortions were outlawed, there would be significantly more people in this country is not true.
- Women who are brave enough to admit they are not capable or willing to make the changes necessary to carry a fetus to term should be applauded. It isn’t easy to admit something so selfish. But it is better to admit to something that selfish, than pretend they are willing to change, but continue with bad habits that could have life-long consequences for a child (such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). Society has expectations of women to be mothers. If a woman doesn’t want to conform to that expectation, that is her right. If she has a substance abuse problem, she is even less capable/willing to care for anyone, including in utero.
Abortion is not an easy decision for anyone that must face it. And for those that do not care, do you really think they should be having children? There are enough unwanted children in this country. Why should we add more to the number, to the foster system, to the orphanages?
Do you have any to add?
