Abortion: Right or Wrong, Certain Things are True... Of those who read this article, the pro-lifers will tend to think it"s pro-abortion, and the abortion advocates will tend to think it"s pro-life. This is because of a certain set of flaws in the attitudes of both sides. What else could produce such an inconsistent result? First, I believe abortion needs to be legal. This does not mean that I like abortion. I dislike many things that I think need to be legal. On the other hand, most of the arguments abortionists make are false. Being right on an issue does not mean that lying is justified. In fact, it means one should not have to even stretch the truth the tiniest bit, because they are already correct, and need only to get the real truth out. Abortion should be legal for one reason only - Making it illegal would cause more harm than good. People would continue having abortions, but it would be yet another massive government police state problem, like the alcohol prohibition, or any other prohibition the government has tried to force on people. Perhaps if there were, as there someday may be, real alternatives to abortion. And I don"t mean adoption. That seems reasonable to a lot of people, but there are too many who simply could not get through that, either because they want to conceal the whole thing, or because they believe that killing the baby would be easier than trying to give him or her up after they are born. Someday, perhaps, either birth control will be so perfect and accessible that unwanted pregnancy is almost unheard-of, and/or a baby could safely be "adopted" when only a few months old, using some high tech transplant process, et cetera. But until this happens, it would be like banning anything else; a failure that creates more excuses for oppressive government. Unfortunately, this is the least-used argument by the abortionists. This is probably because so many of them are so fond of prohibition on almost any other subject, other than abortion. Arguments abortionists use, which are false: The Constitution protects our right to privacy I wish this was true. But if this right was acknowledged in the Constitution, then how could drugs, prostitution, gambling, guns, and soon smoking be illegal? Why is a woman"s ONLY right to choose what to do with her own body that "right" to have a doctor and his staff give her an abortion, and not the right to sell sexual services, or do drugs, or gamble? Or, for that matter, why can"t she own and carry guns, keep all of the money she earns on her job, et cetera? Why is her right to privately control every other aspect of her life not protected? Let"s face it...the Supreme Court simply wanted to pass its own law legalizing abortion. Even though abortion needs to be legal, this was wrong, because those justices lied. If they believed such a right existed, they would have ended all of the other violations of "privacy", too. A woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body I agree, even though few abortion "leaders" really believe that. But I think that it applies to all of the issues those abortionists often want to ban (smoking, drugs, prostitution, gambling, guns) before it would apply to abortion. Why? Because abortion involves two lives. It may be necessary for it to be legal, but that has nothing to do with "the right to choose", since it"s actually effecting another human being who has no say in the issue. The feotus is not alive Is it dead? Of course not...it"s alive. He or she is alive, that is. They are not dead, so they are alive. Killing pre-born babies may need to be legal, but this doesn"t magically render them dead. Well, not until after the abortion, anyway. They are just a part of their mother"s body, like an appendix Actually, any good biologist can tell you that this is absolutely, 100% false. The unborn baby is more like a "parasite" than an organ. The baby simply gets air and food from an "airlock" called the placenta. That placenta serves as a gateway between two completely different beings. The womb is a super-sophisticated equivalent of a kangaroo"s pouch. Marsupials like kangaroos are simply primitive mammals. Humans are placental mammals, which are different mainly in that they have a much more advanced version of the same live-birth technique. The baby is not human Is it a kumquat? A hamster? A cabbage? No, it"s a human. Any biologist could identify its species as "homo sapiens sapiens" without looking at the mother. They are not viable, they depend on the mother So does a post-born baby. Or should we move the age of majority from 18 to 0? Remember the marsupial bit? An unborn baby is very dependent on his mother, about as much as a patient in Intensive Care is dependent on the hospital. He gets food and air from his mother. So he is un-viable in the same way as a one year old, just a little more so. By the way, you could keep an appendix alive for the next million years, and it would never become a "viable" human being. It"s a Women"s Issue Actually, the feminists are the ones who got abortion banned in the first place. I"m going to write a whole separate page on that. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be safe, legal, and free Ah, no. If men could get pregnant, then abortion would actually be illegal right now. Men have made abortion legal now in order to allow them to pressure women into having abortions so they don"t have to pay child support. Why on earth, considering child support laws and the embarrassment of someone other than his main mate being pregnant (thus proving he cheated on her), would any man ever want abortion banned? It"s a woman"s body, so it"s her responsibility ignoring the fact that two bodies are involved, I"ll go along with this one wholeheartedly, as soon as no woman can force the father to pay child support unless she got a voluntary agreement from him to do so. Why? Because the mother must take full responsibility for her choice, including all costs and other negative parts. What kind of irresponsible person just wants the GOOD part of being able to make a choice? Why should she get to make the full decision, having the power to ignore what the father wants (about the abortion), and then be able to make him pay for it? If SHE gets to decide whether to have an abortion this means she is the one who gets to decide to KEEP the baby. What if he"d rather she have an abortion? Why should he pay for it if she does not? Because it"s half his responsibility, she couldn"t make the baby without him, damnit! OK, I"ll go along with that if you prefer...but then it"s not HER choice, is it. Either it"s all her, or it"s only half her. Which do you want? Does he get to decide to abort the baby? If so, then he should have to pay for half of the baby. If he doesn"t get to decide, then he shouldn"t have to pay for her decision. Let the woman have the right to choose to have an abortion, and then the full responsibility for her choice, whichever way she makes it. Responsibility is a two-edged sword. Men should not be second-class citizens any more than women should ever have been. Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites, because most of the pro-life leaders are for capital punishment. I, like many who believe abortion needs to be legal, am against capital punishment. But I"m afraid that the pro-lifers are being perfectly consistent, from their standpoint. I am definitely not going to be the monster who rears up on his hind legs and says a baby"s life is worth less than a serial killer, are you? Anyone who uses this argument is saying just that. If anyone should have to defend their position as inconsistent, it"s we who believe abortion should be legal, and capital punishment not be. Pro-Lifers are hypocrites for trying to kill abortion doctors No, they"re wrong, but they"re being consistent. So far, almost 30,000,000 babies have been aborted since it was legalized. This is not some conspiracy theory, the pro-abortion leaders will admit this; it is the official number. The pro-lifers think that these were all little babies who deserve full protection like any other living human being. Now, let"s say this is Nazi Germany, and we find out that millions of people are being killed. Would it be hypocritical to kill the leaders of the concentration camps in an effort to save them? I would hope it would not be, even if the people who opposed the killing of people in concentration camps called themselves "pro-life". Abortion is a religious issue, protected by separation of church and stateNo, this one can"t work either, if we"re honest. If murdering adults were legalized, the Christians would be against it. Would this mean it"s a religious issue? If that"s the case, then all murder must be legalized, because of the separation of church and state. Men shouldn"t be able to pass laws on abortion, because they can"t get pregnantLet"s be real...should women not have a say in rape (using the normal male-to-female definition), because they cannot be rapists? The idea that you have to be able to commit an action in order to pass a law against it is just lunatic. So is the idea that one must be something to understand it, like female, black, et cetera. That is a separatist, racist, sexist stance, and like most separatism, racism, and sexism, it makes no sense at all when you look at it logically. It is perpetrated by people who are anti-imagination: Surely one can think "how would I feel if...", and use their imagination. I feel bad when I see an lower animal suffering, even though I am (by way of our possibly arrogant measurement of things) not a lower animal. Can only little kittens understand how horrible it is to torture little kittens, or even be the only ones to understand what that torture might be like? Dehumanizing Speech Just as the Klan uses specific kinds of speech to dehumanize blacks, and the Nazis twisted speech to dehumanize Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, et cetera, abortionist leaders bend over backwards to make the baby sound as non-human and irrelevant as possible. Even feotus, a legitimate term when a doctor uses it in medical circumstances, has been twisted into the equivilent of nigger or kike. With a special easier spelling, of course, to make it more user-friendly. But ask yourself this: If your wife, mother, sister, friend, or daughter decides to have a baby, are you ever going to say to her: Can you feel the fetus kick yet? If the fetus becomes viable, what will you name it? Is this a male fetus, or female? No, of course you would not. Because an unborn baby, when not being technical, is a "baby". In fact, listen carefully to any abortion "leader" talking about the unborn baby specifically, especially if responding to any comment that makes the baby sound, oh, like a living human being (which it technically is). You will hear what, if applied to any post-birth human, would be called hate-speech without the slightest question. I believe abortion needs to be legal, but I don"t believe in behaving like a bigot in order to justify it. This is inexcusable. And "making it easy for the mother" is no excuse, because the mother should definitely understand exactly what she"s doing. If she does, and still wishes to have an abortion, it should be legal...but surely she should be making an informed decision. If a jury is considering whether to give the Death Penalty to a murderer who happens to be black (setting aside whether capital punishment is right or wrong, for now), should the judge and lawyers refer to him as a nigger who is not really a human being, just to make the decision easier, or should the jury perhaps be required to make the decision with full understanding of their actions? As horrible as that example sounds, and it"s bad enough that I"m uncomfortable writing it, that"s exactly how horrible it is when an abortion "leader" does the same thing to unborn babies. Now we come to the Abortionist Leadership"s Big Lie: "I am pro-choice" No, I am pro-choice. Maybe you, the reader, are pro-choice. But the people who are "leaders" on this issue are not pro-choice, because last I noticed "choice" doesn"t just mean "abortion". Where is: The Woman"s Right to Choose to Smoke? The Woman"s Right to Choose to Do Drugs? The Woman"s Right to Choose to Gamble? The Woman"s Reproductive Right to Choose to Sell Services Using her Reproductive Parts? The Woman"s Right to Choose to Not Wear a Seatbelt? The Woman"s Right to Choose not to Risk Being Killed by her Airbag Because She"s Four Feet Eleven Inches Tall? The Woman"s Right to Choose How to Spend that Forty Percent the Government Takes from Her Paycheck? The Woman"s Right to Choose To Carry a Gun When She Walks through a Dark Alley in the Murder Capital of the US on the Way to Her Car? Why does she only have one choice, and men none? And how on earth could that possibly make the person who only believes in that one choice "pro-choice"? Even if all of those choices I listed should be illegal, one who is against those choices still is not pro-choice. I have a saying - When one side tends to make a lot of fallacious/false arguments, that side is probably the one that is wrong. This is because one can guess that they must not have the truth and facts on their side, or else why would they be playing games? Because of this, I am more strongly and outspokenly opposed to those who agree with me, and yet make false argum
