Reading more local blogs, and I came across another gem from Carl Fakeley’s Blog:
You can find Carl’s Twitter account here: @Fakely
The article quotes from other sources on the arguments for abortion in the cases of rape and incest (The “Arguments From Pity”), and sets up the proposition that using examples of incest and rape are a play on sympathies to support the greater Pro-Choice agenda of abortion on demand. As defined by the blog’s reference:
This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape.
This is apparently what pro-choicers are all about – aborting 9 month old pregnancies because it wasn’t the right sex. I personally love how they cavalierly group conveniance and rape together.
My favourite part of the blog post, however, is when the referenced article seems to suggest that the way pregnancy from rape or incest should be handled isn’t through abortion. In actual fact, pregnancy does not occur immediately after intercourse, so rape and incest caused pregnancies can be completely eliminated by removing the male sperm from the uterus post-rape.
I assume they have a fancy vaccuum cleaner for that.
The article goes on to blame “career oriented women” as a major cause of abortion.
We must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest.
Whoa, man. Abortion of pregnancies due to rape and incest are on equal footing as a woman who wants an abortion because pregnancy would inconveniance her promotion? I don’t feel I have to argue against that. It’s self evidently immoral.
I see why they would view it that way. They believe that a human being is a human being whether it was conceived through rape or through consensual sex. Most people would agree that a murder of an adult conceived in rape is just as morally wrong as the murder of an adult conceived in consensual sex. There’s no difference in the value of their lives and therefore taking either of those lives would be on an equal footing. Pro-lifers don’t usually see any difference between a bundle of cells in the uterus and a fully formed human being, so I guess their argument is logical in that sense. They really don’t give much consideration to the mother though.
I think abortion is wrong as a general rule, but it is necessary in particular circumstances, like when the quality of life for the mother or child will be severely impacted. An analogy would be like it would be wrong to kill an animal for the sake of convenience, but it would be necessary to kill it if it was seriously threatening the lives or quality of life of humans. Anyways, the world is over populated as it is. Every abortion means one less mouth for mother nature to feed.