Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue


The problem with pro-choice

Pro-choicer's care so little about the life of a child, that they completely ignore it's right to life, which is completely hypocritical. It's because of their obsessed focus on the woman and not the child that has led to the rise of people like Gosnell, a serial killer disguised as an abortionist.

Abortion is not a black and white issue

Pro-choicer's need to be very clear on the terms of an acceptable abortion. If there are no limits, no limits will exist, and unimaginable human rights abuses towards infants will occur in the future.

Should that really be allowed under the justification of "freedom of choice". That's a very vague stance, as I could shoot my neighbor under that very same justification.

Because I actually do believe in free choice, I accept that a woman has a right to not have a child, but I also believe that a child who is obviously alive should have the right not to be inhumanely disposed of like some kind of animal to be slaughtered for a local meat market.

Basically, extreme pro-choice people are hypocrites.

Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue

The problem with pro-life

First off, the term pro-life is used as a slander to make those who argue against you seem like they are pro-death, even though many pro-lifers support the death penalty.

According to the definition presented, any termination of a pregnancy, whether intentional or not, is technically an abortion. Are we going to say that any woman who has had a miscarriage is a murderer? Of course not. For those who intentionally abort, we have to consider circumstance.

Would you really find it acceptable for a 12-year old child to be responsible for a human life?

If so, what would you suggest be done for the child's welfare?

Most people have no real solution for the latter question. Most of them suggest placing them up for adoption, which can be detrimental for the child's mental health. Nevertheless, most pro-life supporters see this as an moral victory, which I find quite appalling.

It's also interesting to note that most pro-lifers, are male. The only people who can't get an abortion since they don't carry the child. They also ignore the fact that by making it illegal, women will simply go to unlicensed doctors or take extreme measures to terminate the pregnancy.

According to WHO 21.6 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year, 47 000 of which die from complications of unsafe abortion each year.

Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue

In the above video George Carlin brought up a lot of good points, although I disagree with him on the sanctity of life. I believe that what makes life so special is that it has an experation date and that you only have a one in 400 trillion chance of being born.

The alternative

Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue

The government's stance should be exactly that. Abortion should be available to those that are in a bad situation and see it as the only way out. It's not a choice to be made lightly, we should encourage discussion with friends, family, and the man who impregnanted the woman before she goes through with the procedure. Proper sex education that teaches about contraception can greatly reduce the amounts of abortions.

There was a study conducted by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis which had 9,256 women from the St. Louis region enrol into the Contraceptive Choice Project between August 2007 and September 2011. The women were aged 14 to 45, with an average age of 25, and many were poor and uninsured with low education. Nearly two-thirds had had an unintended pregnancy previously. Participants were either not using a reversible contraception method or willing to switch to a new one. Researchers provided free, FDA-approved birth control to the women for three years.

Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue

Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, which is much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

The effect of free contraception on the teen birth rate was remarkable: there were 6.3 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 in the study, compared with the national rate of 34.3 births per 1,000 teen girls.

“Changes in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive Choice Project would prevent as many as 41% to 71% of abortions performed annually in the United States,” the study’s authors wrote.

Nearly half of the more than 6 million pregnancies that occur each year are unintended, and about 43% of them end in abortion. Further, about 1 million births are unintended, costing U.S. taxpayers about $11 billion a year in associated expenses. Low-income women with less education are far more likely to have an unintended pregnancy than their wealthier, educated peers.

About half of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using no contraception; in other cases, women may be using short-acting contraception, like condoms or pills, which can fail if not used properly.

Feel free to check out the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted pregnancy for more information.


Abortion Is Not A Black And White Issue
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Girl

  • rescuemyheart
    I think abortion generally does the most damage to the woman undergoing the procedure. Very few people support 0 regulation so the inhumanities you're talking about rarely take place.

    You don't need to discourage abortion because no woman WANTS to have an abortion. It's sad for most women. It's a last resort and in many cases it's just best option.

    But that doesn't make the fetus a child (at least not in the 1st trimester). It is NOT a child. If you want to argue that point without being unequivocally pro life, that's your prerogative. But what that says is you support murdering children in some cases.. think that over.

    I support murdering children in NO cases. And I support a woman's right to choose.

    As for sex education, it's out there. We live in the information age. People know how to habe safe sex. But accidents still happen. That's life.
    Is this still revelant?
    • My main concern is when abortion is treated as an easy way out for people who choose not to use protection. I support abortion in the first trimester as long as it is seen as the only option after all things have been considered.

      Thanks for the inspiration for this myTake

    • My concern as that you think abortions are "easy" for the women who have them.

      And no problem :)

    • I understand that in most cases women understand that abortions are not something to be taken lightly. My concern is with the minority that do.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • Chief16
    I agree, this is a moral issue and not a political one. Its unconstitutional and the state shouldn't have the say in what a person does about their lives until they jeopardize the nation or state, that being said.
    I'd wish people to lean on pro life morally, to have them understand the consequences of aborting a life they didn't intend to bring into this world. After all no child should ever be or feel unwanted.
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions


What Girls & Guys Said

  • Spiorad_Aisce
    This is probably one issue where I am probably absolutely in the middle that is why I am not in favour of blanket laws or inserting clauses into the constitution as is the irish case. We could sit down and agree what we think is an entirely reasonable text for a law and present it, I bet within seconds the pro-choice and pro-life groups would have scenarios to show us how wrong this law would be therefore the only way forward is their view.
    A total ban on terminations endangers the mother and sometimes the foetus plus leads to the awful prospect of a rise in backstreet abortions. Total freedom of choice leads to healthy foetuses being terminated.
    Okay, time to go down the ideal world route
    (1) Full and comprehensive sex education
    (2) Full availability of contraception and the use of protection more accepted than the non use of protection except obviously where pregnancy is the desired outcome
    (3) If unwanted pregnancy happens, no stigma to carrying the child full term then giving it up for adoption assuming the health of the mother and foetus are good.
    (4) If termination requested, in total privacy, a medical, psychological and legal review takes place and advises on a case by case basis (Since we are in ideal world 1 + 2 will mean cases of 3 + 4 are rare and necessary). I don't think having people's private business trashed out in a very public forum helps anybody.
    On all my accounts here, I have always said on issues such as these, there is often no wholly right or wrong position but would we not be better off trying to find a middle ground rather than immediately retreating to our trenches to start lobbing grenades at each other.
    • I'm gladly that you see that it's not a simple issue

    • Those are good points/plan of action.

  • Titanic1912
    ABORTION IS WRONG!!! Exclamation point! End of sentence! Killing is against the law. You kill an unborn baby; you broke the law!!! That makes perfect sense. Why is it wrong to kill someone else, but not an unborn baby?
    • Because 'unborn baby' does not mean 'living person' in the eyes of the law.

      Or most people.

      Besides, its not your body being taken over by some creature growing inside of you, nor you who will be left with a kid to look after even when you have no right to have a child under your care.

      Let the chick make her decision without you calling her a murderer.

    • @BaileyisDarcy, the embryo or fetus is a living thing in the eyes of God! It is also to me and my future wife! She'll be completely against abortion! You know for yourself it's wrong! You just want to argue with a Christian who loves the King of kings!

    • If I knew for myself it was wrong I would not be pro-choice.

      I don't want to argue with anyone, I simply wanted to offer another point of view for you to consider. But since you are obviously dead set on not doing so, I'll take my leave.

    • Show All
  • tyber1
    Part of the reason it's a touchy subject is because the 'child' develops so much over the course of 9 months that it's hard to draw lines. Sure, there are the religious nuts who think a fertilized egg has more rights than the woman who is carrying it but it's hard to even take them seriously. But at what point does the "child's" right to live outweigh the right of the woman to her body. Some would argue that birth is the cutoff. Others would say the point of viability. Some would say when the "child's" brain developed to a certain point but even that's hazy. Certainly a small cluster of undifferentiated cells doesn't have rights any more so than bacteria but it's just difficult to look at a partially developed fetus and say whether it's progressed far enough to have human rights. There is a scientific basis for it but it's still very arbitrary.
    • I am surprised you brought up the point about bacteria. Sure, maybe human legal frameworks cannot provide for them a right to live, but if and when you communicate with them, I am sure they would say otherwise--that they have a right to live too.

    • tyber1

      @Psi_Unknown they don't have brains, communicating with them is impossible.

    • Wait, who are you saying doesn't have brains?

    • Show All
  • accomplice
    It is not for me to say whether a woman should get an abortion or not -- it is for the woman to decide when she wants a pregnancy to end.

    If the fetus is viable, all efforts should be made to save its life, but a woman's body is her own and she should not be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy any more than I should be forced to donate a kidney to someone who would die without mine.

    I am strongly pro-choice and I see absolutely no hypocrisy in this position.

    It is not for me to judge another person's morality, or restrict their freedom to do with their body what wish. It is irrelevant to me how much a woman deliberates over her decision, is troubled by it, or does it for reasons that I would not find sufficient if it were me deciding.
  • BlackDawn
    That thing has no right to life, especially no right that supercedes my right to control my body and who has access to it.
    Pro choice is about supporting the woman's choice for life or abortion.
  • Psi_Unknown
    If talking about this issue doesn't get me some haters, I don't know what will! The Reagan quote is a good observation. The unborn cannot speak directly. The point about limits is probably the best one the original poster made in my eyes. People are quickly labeled as pro-choice or pro-life, but people should (or especially a legal framework should) specify where they draw the line for limits. Once those lines are drawn or known, then the rest will follow. Right now I can see people seeing 0 days as too late to have an abortion, yet for others, 3 days, a week, a month, or longer might be considered acceptable. Personally, I can also understand the desire or need to have an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and I don't think waiting a long time after to have an abortion is a good idea.