I was recently involved in a discussion that REALLY made me think. It challenged me a great deal, and I’d like to get your opinion about it. The conversation was about abortion, and about the babies that would be saved if it were outlawed.If abortion were illegal, many more babies would be born (duh). Granted some women/girls would choose to have back ally abortions, but I think we can assume that there would be many more babies born into our world if abortions were not so readily available. Obviously, since the mothers we are talking about in this case are women who don’t really want their babies anyway, what makes us think that they would care for them if they were forced into having them? What might happen to these babies if their mothers (and fathers) were forced into keeping them? Do we really believe that they would all of a sudden become loving, caring parents just because they are forced into keeping their baby? Or, is it more likely that the parents will become resentful toward the child and he or she will be abused and/or neglected?
Now, I know what you are thinking. There are thousands of couples that want to adopt babies; they will care for the “unwanted” babies. Really? Our country doesn’t have enough adoptive and foster families now. Agencies all over our nation are begging for families who are willing to adopt these precious little ones. Sure, there are many families looking for a healthy, Caucasian baby whose birth-mother never smoked, drank, did drugs or had any disease to speak of. But how many families are willing to take a minority, medically fragile infant whose mother passed on her crack addiction? Who is taking care of these kids, and who would have taken care of the 1.2 million babies that were aborted last year in America if abortion were illegal?
Let me make myself VERY clear. I AM NOT ADVOCATING ABORTION. I am pro-life…even in cases of rape and incest.
I think the answer to all of this is clear, and it is the same now as it has always been. We need to focus less on the unborn baby and more on the mother and father. Until we educate people on safe sex, pregnancy and parenting, this problem will go on and on and on.
I am digressing. Sorry. Let me just ask you this. If abortion became illegal, who would care for the unwanted babies? And second, what can we do to help educate people to make better choices about their sexuality, and help them to be better parents to a child that they hadn’t planned on having?
5 comments:
I think that you bring a valid point, that is, in my mind, the flaw of fundamentalist philosophy. Regarding the issue of abortion, so many fundamentalist Christians remain focused on ONE SOLE ISSUE. This becomes the battle line for our political choices. I think that many people will vote for a person who claims to be "pro-life", regardless of other areas of their platform. It seems shocking to me that a "christian" will vote for a person who will cut social programs, demolish our foreign policy, and comprimise civil liberties, all because a person claims to be "pro-life".
Affordable healthcare for all americans is "pro-life" as well.
To incarcerate individuals who are american citizens and legal residents without due process is hardly "pro-life".
The torture and murder of prisoner's of war is hardly "pro-life"
To grant massive amounts of money to nepotist contractors while individuals in our country remain sick, hungry, and uneducated is hardly "pro-life"
To support totalitarian regimes in countries like Equatorial Guniea for the sake of the oil contracts it will provide for the presiden't golf buddies is hardly "pro-life".
I think that if Christians are indeed going to vote for a candidate that is "pro-life" they need to look at the ENTIRE spectrum of an candidates regard or disregard for life, rather than a SINGLE issue.
the fact is, that the "single issue" makes it so much easier. I think that people base their choice on the single issue because it is FAR easier to look at one item on a platform rather than looking at the "Big Picture"
3q
There are some questions that beg to be asked. For one thing, now that there is a person, whose name I forget presently, (I think his name is Bernard Nathanson) who changed sides on the abortion issue, and whom was once a physician who practiced abortion, who is telling the truth, and who is exaggerating it for their own purposes?
This man says that he and a group of other people at the start, coined the phrases, 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'to give those who were for legalized abortions a more positive sounding image, and those against it, the more negative one.
He also says that though he himself performed many abortions after Roe Vs. Wade, that the number of said abortions before Roe were much much smaller than his group originally alleged.
Think of it this way, it is easy to believe that when something becomes legal, activity in that action increases by leaps and bounds. There is no restraint, so naturally, people stop being concerned about consequences, and there are definately consequences. There are too, too many testimonials given by ladies who have had abortions who deeply regretted them, or suffered procedural trauma at legal clinics, whose reproductive capabilities were terminated with the child, or whose lives were emotionally and maybe irreparably shattered. I know several. I went to school with a girl who had three. Her life has never been the same. Her friend also had two.
A lady in my church was raped and had an abortion and later wished she'd kept the child. It has haunted her ever since. I have a good friend whose husband browbeat her into an abortion because he didn't want a child. Now they're divorced. The stories go on, and I'm just one person. I think the bad stories outweigh the good.
So if abortion became illegal, I'm guessing there would be a period of defiance that would come at first, when the generation of women for whom it has become normative decided to disobey the new law, so how many children at first, would actually be born? After some more time passed, would the presence of the new law provide some much needed restraint?
Your thought, I believe, is very valid in that education for parents is the key.
Your anonymous poster, attempts apparently to tap Christians for being the key to the problem. I've heard this before. Let me say that as a Christian, I am against the death penalty, I hate the Patriot Act, and I am against our presence in Iraq, largely because, as I told my wife, who does approve, "Two weeks after we're there, and Saddam's regime falls, they're going to hate us and want us out." I may have been wrong about them hating us for the most part. As far as I can tell, on either side of the political aisle, there aren't, and haven't been, great choices. Neither side seems to perform more than occasionally marginally better than the other. All I can do is vote for a candidate that professes to uphold things that I believe in. One of those things is that I believe we have a moral obligation to protect the innocent unborn, precisely because they are innocent. They didn't ask to come into existence.
Too many pro-choice advocates and abortion physicians have made public quotes that life begins at conception, or have stated in no uncertain terms that it is murder, only to follow up by saying that the mother's right to choice in the matter trumps the rights of the child.
Wouldn't all of this be avoided, and the question of what would become of unwanted children too, if people weren't so promiscuous, or so careless?
Wouldn't the world be a better place altogether if the respect for faithful marriage and the disdain for casually having sex outside of marriage as taught by Jesus were adopted by most people?
Even if people dispise Christians because of there voting record and their stance on abortion, aren't these things obviously part of a doable solution?
I think whether or not one wants to be a Christian or not, you cannot ignore the rightness of the teachings in the area of sexuality, and if people would be less concerned with their sexual freedoms, and more concerned with decency, I don't think there would be as many children wanting for loving homes. However, if we keep aborting them at the rate of 1 to 2 million per year, we will never know, will we?
So what do we do in the meantime? What do we do with the "unwanted" and "unadoptable" children?
I have a question for seekhm1st. Since you are so opposed to abortion, I assume you have helped women in this situation find help and have helped women find a home for her child, correct?
So, the question is, then. . .if abortion were made to be illegal, who is going to take care of the babies?
What systems are going to be in place to provide for unwanted children?
Now, don't get me wrong, i think abortion is awful, as I have said before, but the issue still remains: If it is illegal, who is going to take care of the kids?
An extreme thing would be to fit every woman at puberty with an IUD. . .have contraception be the NORM. . .the default. A woman must them apply for a liscence to have a child. In order for the liscence to be granted, the woman must pass a parenting class, demonstrate that she is financially and emotionally able to take care of a child. Conception without a liscence will be punishable by prison and/or stiff fines.
I address this as a female issue, because abortion is consistently addressed as a "woman's choice" issue. The message is sent loud and clear: Unwanted pregnancies are NOT an option. If you want kids, you must plan for them and take responsibility for them.
Now, this IS an extreme example. . .an off the cuff solution that really is NOT one. But short of that, how ARE we going to take care of unwanted children if abortion is made illegal?
Would an across the board 10% tax hike be good? the revenue would then go into social programs and education programs?
Abortion is a poor option for unwanted children, but at least it is an option. This is MUCH better than what most "pro-life" people offer, which is NO solution. AGain, if a person is REALLY "pro-life, start adopting babies, regardless of race or needs status. Give solutions instead of condemntation.
3q
anonymous, in answer to your question, yes, I have. As to what to do in the meantime, read my first post again and maybe you will see what my thoughts were. If not, you might do some research into just how many organizations (the larger percentage of them are Christian) there are out there who do outreach to women in need of help placing their unwanted children children into homes where they are wanted, or into temporary Christian foster care until homes can be found. There are many many Christian outreach programs, funded by donations from church goers and non-believers, whose sole interest is in the welfare of the unborn and their well-being, and not just in this country, but in others as well, supplying food, medical care to pregnant mothers and even providing them with homes that they themselves cannot afford, all from the pocketbooks of caring individuals who believe that money, time and effort for the unborn and the families, or adoptive families, is well invested. They can't do it all though, as you so rightly point out. Those people who just lament the idea that all of the children will be unwanted, and do nothing else, have to get involved and have to invest these things as well.
Post a Comment