I wholeheartedly appologize for the size of this post. This is not my work, but it is a very good writing on the positon:This is Aaron from www.dotcult.com: Posted Jan 16, 2001:
As I've stated before, I never get involved in political issues. I have my own views on certain things, but I don't feel that I as a human being have the right to make another human being live their life a certain way. I can present logic and give suggestions, but creating policy for another person is something that I do not believe that I have the right to do.
However, in keeping in the spirit of proclaiming my opinions whenever possible, I will now voice my thoughts on the much debated topic of abortion.
I'm not pro-life, nor am I pro-choice. As I stated, I don't dictate policies for others. However, I would not kill a fetus that I helped to create, nor would I suggest for anyone else to do it.
While I do not get involved in politics, I do observe arguments from time to time. And I must say, the abortion issue has produced some of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen...on both sides of the issue. And now, I present a few of my personal favorites.
What if the woman is raped?
Oh yes, the infamous "create a victim to get an upper hand in the argument" tactic. This argumentative tactic is very similar to the common use of babies and children as sympathy crutches. And you know how I feel about the whole "What about the children?" thing.
Rape is a cruel crime to commit. I sympathize with any victims of rape, along with the physical and emotional damage that it causes. Sometimes, rapists impregnate the women that they victimize. Some pro-choice people often use this situation as a basis for their cause. They say "The woman didn't choose to make this child, why should she have to keep it?", or something to that effect. That type of statement may work on the more sympathetic individual, but for a logical person...it holds no water.
I seriously wonder how many of the people who use this argument have actually known a person that admitted to being a byproduct of rape. I would be willing to say that 99\% of them have not had a person who confided in them that they were a child of a rapist.
I personally know a couple of people that were brought here as a result of this crime. They're doing well in life, and find the very notion of their mother killing them because of something they had no control over preposterous. They are very thankful for the lives that they were blessed with, and happy that their mothers did not take "the easy way out." The same goes for the mothers; they love their children and abhor the thought of their lives being taken away because they weren't "planned."
There are two reasons for even using this as an argument. The first is that people who are skillful in argumentative speech know that "evil" words such as rape send out an immediate reaction to emotional people. Emotions block out logic, which makes the flaws in the argument harder to discern. It's simple word association play; rape = victim, victim = innocent, innocent = guilt free. I commend those who use this sneeaky tactic on their manipulation skills.
The second reason is that this gets rid of the whole "lack of responsibility" argument. Logic would dictate that punishing others for your mistakes makes no sense, so situations that absolve a person from responsibility are brought into play. However, this does not mask the fact that the vast majority of abortions are in fact cause by a blatant avoidance of responsibility. Trying to justify the legality of abortions as a whole by quoting something that is clearly a "special case" would be the same as legalizing murder as a whole because "sometimes it's done in self defense."
Justifying abortion based on something that is clearly a minute aspect of the issue (I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics put the rape factor at around 1\% or so) is ridiculous. It's almost as bad as the argument of:
What if the woman cannot take care of the child?
The problem with this argument is that no one can predict the future. Most people that use this argument portray the future child similarly to the children shown on television in those "save the children" ads. Right. More of that sentimental imagery crap. Sure, taking care of a child would be added responsibility and work, but there are very, very few cases in which it would be impossible for the mother to adequately provide for the child's well being with nothing more than a little added work and effort.
Similar to the whole rape issue, the percentage of those that legitimately would be forced to lead their future child into a tortured life of absolute poverty and destitution is very, very minute. This argument is most often used to mask the real argument in this case (most of the time), which could be summed up like this:
"What if a mother is too lazy and irresponsible to take care of the child and would sacrifice another's life just to make hers easier?"
What about birth defects, incurable diseases, etc.?
Ah, the ancient argument of "mercy killings." This is one of the better arguments, as logic is harder to put into play in this instance. It took me a little while to come up with a "witty retort" for this one, let me tell you! But finally, after much deliberation, I answered that statement with this:
If it is legal to "mercifully kill" a baby, why is it that I would be prosecuted for "mercifully killing" a deformed person or a retarded person? It's the same thing, after all - one person is making it their decision to end another's life. And comparing abortion to "pulling the plug" on a chronically ill person is like comparing apples and oranges. Extending a person's natural life is completely different to cutting one's natural life short.
Abortion should be illegal! It's morally wrong!
(This paragraph has been edited because it didn't sound the way I want it to. I admit my mistakes!)Most of the morals that we go by today are a result of religion; taking religion out of the equation means that your actions are based completely on the will of the majority. If you're not religious, then the things you view as "moral" are only aspects of the thinking of the majority that you have percieved from a young age. "Human laws" are often changed, as was evidenced by the fact that things that are viewed as "morally wrong" now were accepted before, and vice versa. Non-religious "morals" change with the wind.
If people try to use the Bible as a basis for outlawing abortion, they're still in error. While the Bible states that murder is wrong and states that a fetus' life is worth just as much as a grown person's, it also states that Christians are not to be involved in politics. That's right; by picketing, protesting, and rallying "the cause", you're voiding out your allegiance to the Bible and cannot use it as a basis. Sorry.
The problem with any pro-abortion argument is that you're justifying the taking away of human life. The problem with anti-abortion arguments is that it is hard to come up with a common basis as to why it is wrong to take away a human life in the first place.
I personally think that people should stop coming up with stupid excuses for their reasoning and say what they really feel. Could you imagine the rallies if people stated what was really on their mind? I could see the signs now:
"I don't like abortion so you should change the law to fit my feelings!"
"I like abortion so you should change the law to fit my feelings!"
It all basically comes down to making your own personal choices and dealing with the consequences of that choice. I'm against the abortion of any future child of mine and I don't like seeing that the practice is regularly performed, but I'm not going to try to govern your lives because of my decision.
