- “By abortion the mother does not learn to love, but kills her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women to the same trouble. So abortion leads to more abortion.”
Mother Teresa
You may also like
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your […]
“We are all in a race for dear life: that is to say, we are fugitives from death.” Theodor Reik “The Need […]
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together […]
No Comments “Notable Quotable”
“Unwanted children lead to poverty, violence and increased crime. Unlawful abortion leads
to botched abortions performed by unskilled doctors and amateurs.” – pinkmonkeybird
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in regards to abortion in a long time. Poverty is caused, for the most part, by lazy people who refuse to work out of a sense of entitlement. Violence and crime are caused by a lack of morals and values as well as an arrogant sense of pride on the part of people who feel they are better than those they are attacking.
Unlawful abortion leads to a whole lot less abortions. No matter what anecdotes a pro-abort comes up with, the vast majority (more than 95%) of abortions are performed on women who selfishly kill their unborn children for personal reasons.
If a woman doesn’t want the child, it isn’t hard to find a childless couple who would love to adopt it. It’s not like this country has orphanages filled with unwanted children or feral children wandering the streets.
Legalizing murder doesn’t make murder okay.
It’s not murder if the fetus isn’t yet born.
Especially if it is early fetal development stage.
Women have the right to control their bodies and control birth.
My arguments are not stupid, only rejected by you. Repeal of
Roe v. Wade would bring on unnecessary crime because women will
continue to seek abortions though they would be forbidden through
legal means. It would spawn thousands of families in poverty
with too many children in limited income. It would mean the
influx of thousands of unwanted children who were not affordable
but the State mandated their birthing.
Nurturing a child in the womb for 9 months and then giving it
away for adoption is a heart-wrenching proposition. That is
too high a price for a mother to pay.
Is a seed in the ground a tree? No.
Let’s try and conduct ourselves without calling names, Echo.
You may disagree, but my opinions are not stupid. Nor are yours.
Modern medical science has the means to abort unwanted fetuses safely and
humanely. The world is suffering from over-population. Abortion
is a useful solution to human problems.
Sure, the current civil law doesn’t define it as murder, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t murder. Using the argument that women have the right to control their bodies is pretty myopic, at best. Why does a woman have the right to terminate a life simply because that life is located within her womb? Why doesn’t a woman have the same right to control her body when she wants to use narcotics or sell herself for sex? Why don’t I have the right to control my body if I want to load it up with alcohol and go for a drive? You are saying that although this being has it’s own unique DNA, brainwaves, fingerprints, blood type, and a beating heart, but has no right to live. It’s life is so worthless that it can be terminated simply because the mother doesn’t want to deal with the emotional consequences of adoption? Any woman who would be less affected emotionally by terminating the life of her child, born or unborn, than she would knowing that her giving it up for adoption to parents who have committed to loving it for life would be a noble act in that it gives a creature of value a shake at life, is pretty shallow and heartless if you ask me, not to mention she is the definition of selfish.
What you are probably unaware of, since the pro-aborts don’t want you to know, is that even with modern medicine and legal abortion, abortion raises the risks of health problems in the mother. She is 50% more likely to get breast cancer if she has had an abortion. If she has an abortion before turning 18, she is 150% more likely to get breast cancer. She brings on similar risks of contracting cervical cancer. Most women who have had abortions also report a rise in depression and emotional problems, and why shouldn’t they, they murdered a human being?
If you want to argue that forcing a woman to bring a child into the world impoverishes her, why not argue for an extension to the time line when abortion is legal? Why not allow a woman to humanely terminate her two-year-old. After all, there has to be women out there who thought they could care for their child when it was born, but due to unforeseen circumstances like the loss of a job can’t care for a child after it is born. The difference between a two month old fetus and a two year old child is merely location. One is in the womb and the other is outside of the womb. Not allowing a child to live because it would grow up poor is pretty sadistic.
A seed in the ground may not be a tree, but is also not murder to cut down a full grown tree either. This argument is meaningless, it’s simply a diversion from the main issue.
Modern medical science may be able to terminate the life of an unborn child with minimal risk to the mother, but the child would argue against it being a safe or humane procedure. Would you say that tearing you apart, limb by limb, and disposing of your body is a safe procedure because it brings no harm to the people around you? Hardly!
The world is NOT suffering from overpopulation either. Get out of your downtown Minneapolis urban jungle once in a while and go see the west. This world is full of land that is virtually untouched by civilization.
This world has seen countless dictators that have come along claiming overpopulation. One well-known dictator back in the 1940’s felt that death camps for “degenerate races” was a useful solution to human problems. Another in the 1990’s was said to have tried to wipe out millions of people in Kosovo. Yet another tried to wipe out entire cities of Kurds in norther Mesopotamia. I’m sorry, but eliminating human beings is not the solution to human problems. If you think it is, I suggest you volunteer to be the first to go.
I used to buy into the arguments for legal abortion. I got over my own pride though, and realized that I was only justifying murder.