Don’t miss the main point. People who defend abortion place the convenience and choices or feelings of a woman above the inherent right to life. Without life, there are no rights. Examine abortion supporters’ arguments and you’ll find them to be of an entirely selfish basis or disregarding the unarguable fact that a human life ends (dies) in a successful abortion procedure.
This post was inspired by a Facebook page called “De-fund the Komen Foundation”. The Komen foundation is a non-profit organization that exists to fight breast cancer. It has given nearly 2 billion dollars to find a cure. Who would want to “de-fund” such a worthy enterprise? People who think that a woman’s right to kill the unborn human child they carry, if they choose, is more important than curing breast cancer. Despite the fact that is VERY possible (even likely) that abortion contributes to the risk of breast cancer (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm).
The main point still being, people who defend abortion place the convenience and choices of a woman above the inherent right to life. Without life, there are no rights. You can’t be “subjugated”, “oppressed” or enjoy “reproductive rights” or “reproductive health” if you’re dead. These quoted lines are often used to defend and demand abortion (and that others pay for it often). Feminist radicals talk about “controlling their vagina” without considering the simple logic of that statement. If a woman had “controlled her vagina” by not allowing a penis to enter it, abortion would NEVER be “necessary”. So their arguments boil down to abortion supporting women (and men) want to be able to be sexually irresponsible because they can legally kill (terminate, abort) any human life that results. This is crass and base selfishness. It certainly demonstrates that abortion supporters only care about vagina control when it is about carrying human life after they freely chose to have intercourse. The pro-death of innocents crowd loudly exclaim that the issue is about “controlling their own bodies”, which isn’t true. It is about the right to kill another, distinct individual body that they carry due to the nature of mammalian biology.
One pro-abortion person said on Facebook; “The right to exercise your religion ends at the tip of the woman’s nose you’re attempting to subjugate.” This is a typical pro-abortion straw argument. The issue isn’t about “religion”, it is about human life. It isn’t about any justification for why they support protecting innocent human lives; there are atheists who oppose abortion (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html).
All of the pro-abortion arguments are designed to obfuscate the ONLY real issue. Subjugation, religion, “my vagina”, reproductive health, *my* rights etc., all dodge the only actual issue. Should it be allowed to kill innocent human life in utero. All the other arguments and issues are ancillary and don’t address what pro-life people are trying to do. Trying to save innocent human life. This is why pro-abortion people consistently and repeatedly equate, inaccurately, abortion to birth control. “Birth control” is to prevent conception. After conception, there is an innocent human life and abortion (by any method) kills it.
Why is it ok to kill (terminate, abort) innocent human life in utero and not ex-utero? Why do some pro-abortion arguments deny the biologically indisputable fact the human growth and development begins at conception and ends at death. While others just don’t mention it (or think about it?).
Finally, the pro-death choice people hide behind the “rape and incest exception”. They never attempt to address this logically. First, rape or incest pregnancies are a negligible percentage of abortions executed. More importantly, the innocent human life didn’t rape anyone nor commit incest with anyone. Killing (terminating, aborting) the unborn human is to address the feelings and mental health issues of the victim of the rape or incest. Nothing more. Does punishing the innocent undo the rape or act of incest? No, of course not.
Women who support abortion do not support the first human right, the right to LIVE. If such women are truly concerned about “their vaginas” they wouldn’t engage in activity that everyone knows can result in pregnancy.
Whether people argue individual rights, imagined by a court, or biological fallacies about “blobs of tissue” or many others. They all are far short of the mark. The mark being an innocent human life sacrificed on the altar of convenience or emotion or some combination of both.