We can not justify the horror of abortion through the potential horrors of real life
11 June 2018
In the 2016 Democratic Party platform, it is written that the Democratic Party believes ‘every woman should have access to…safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.’
The ability to pay part, ‘how much money she makes,’ is what interests and worries me at the same time. It makes it seem as if a woman has the inalienable right to an abortion, something which, I have already explained, is the ending of a human life. It also plays into a much wider problem I have with those who are on the side of abortion—they’re entitled.
The entire ‘woman’s right to choose’ argument is steeped in false entitlement. When a man and a woman have sex, they do it under the pretence that it’s a reproductive act, the consequence of which is a new member of the species and one that must be cared for. Even animals know this. If a woman falls pregnant, it’s nobody’s fault but her and the father’s. They have an obligation to carry the baby to term.
Me and anyone else who agrees are not trying to control women. Holding people up to moral expectations is not the domination of a gender but a standard that we hope to achieve for everyone.
Before pregnancy, a woman is free to do whatever she wants with her body. That’s true and great, and in a civilised nation, it always will be. But after a foetus has already begun to grow, we must realise that the mother’s rights are no longer all that matter. They haven’t taken a backseat to the baby’s, but those rights are somewhat diminished in the eyes of taking care of what can’t take care of itself.
I would hope that a mother doesn’t abort her child in the same way I would hope that they don’t smoke or drink while pregnant. They certainly have the freedom to smoke and drink after, but while carrying a child, some liberties must be voluntarily suspended.
A woman does have the right to control her own body, but pregnant women aren’t just controlling their body.
This call for responsibility is too often shot down by the belief that unborn babies have ‘no right’ to live off of the body of their mother. You’ll hear this argument accompanied by an analogy about organ donation and how people get to choose whether or not their organs are donated to save lives.
Applied to the topic of abortion, this is a misleading comparison.
For one, organ donors do not cause the accident that requires their body parts. If I put someone in a position where they require my health and body to survive, I have a responsibility to take care of them. A mother and father are not disconnected from their unborn baby the same way an organ donor is from a car crash victim.
It is never simply a matter of, ‘it’s my body, and I’ll do whatever I want.’
If this is how my generation—the future of the world—thinks, then I’m gravely afraid for the next generation’s wellbeing, a generation raised by parents who held their own comfort in higher regard than their children.
Then there are those who think they’re doing a service to their baby by choosing to abort it.
The world is a hard place, and adoption doesn’t always lead to the best of outcomes. I understand this, and I believe that to be against abortion is also to be for the improvement of children’s lives everywhere. But first, they have to have a life to live.
Do you really think that someone who is suffering hardship is better off dead than alive?
So I have no right to tell you what to do with your body, but you have the right to assume whether an unborn child wants to live or die?
Think about it: the mere possibility of a bad life is enough justification to take away an unborn’s future and feel righteous about it. Any speck of happiness that person could’ve had, from tasting chocolate to seeing the sun set—gone.
Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian migrant. This is used as a point for more open immigration, and it’s a compelling argument. If not for his father’s move to the United States, there would be no Steve Jobs and definitely no Apple today. No iPad, no iPhone, and perhaps no technological revolution.
Steve Jobs was also adopted. He was an unwanted child, and as abortion was illegal during the 1950s, his biological mother had no choice but to carry out the pregnancy and put him up for adoption. That’s where the future innovator found himself in the hands of Paul and Clara Jobs. They named him Steve, and Paul taught him the basics of engineering out of their garage.
We can not justify the horror of abortion through the potential horrors of real life. A life has the potential to be bad as much as it does the potential to be good, especially in the developed world.
A woman’s ability to choose for herself should not destroy a baby’s urge to survive and prosper. No amount of contrivances can justify the opposite.
This is the second entry in a three-part series on the issue of abortion