Click the picture to read the whole article: scroll down about 1/3 of the way to "WHO HAS ABORTIONS?" This shows you that unmarried women account for 86% of all abortions. Further down, you see that unmarried women "living with a partner" account for 25% of abortions. This means that 61% of all abortions (86% minus 25%) are due to casual sex – "hooking up" and having "one-night flings."
Pro-abortion people will almost always bring up the "whattabout" argument: "What about cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's death is likely?" The article "Just the FAQS" in USA Today – hardly a conservative source – states: "Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet the battle over exceptions for both has garnered outsized attention in the national abortion debate." The Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion research group, so again these figures are not from a conservative viewpoint.
A third article, "Abortion and Maternal Mortality," explains that the mortality rate of mothers is only 27 per 100,000 live births, or less than 0.003% which is a statistically insignificant number. So using the under 1.5% of pregnancies, the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother as a "whattabout" argument to justify all abortions is like justifying all speeding by pointing to an instance of a husband exceeding the speed limit to get his pregnant wife who's in labor to the hospital. The exceptions do not make the rule. We simply don't write wide-ranging laws just because of rare exceptions. We should not invent a blanket "right to abortion for any reason" due to these rarities. And adding the crime of murdering a live human being to the crimes of rape or incest does not lessen the evil of those two latter crimes.
Is the right to life found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says a state cannot "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So the general rule is that all persons possess the right to life and equal protection. If states pass laws allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest, the laws must follow "due process" – the rape or incest must be proven by law to have taken place.
The 14th Amendment uses the word "person" – is an unborn baby a "person"? My high school biology teacher who believed in evolution showed us illustrations of the supposed evolutionary ladder of monkeys and apes becoming humans and of a little tadpole as it passed through stages of development to become a frog. He made the analogy that a fetus is just like a tadpole, not a real human being. A few years later, we learned that he was convicted of having sex with one of his students. It is obvious from the first paragraph above that the vast majority of pro-abortion people adopt that position to rationalize having sex outside of marriage: what you really believe determines how you behave and vice-versa.
When Roe v. Wade was decided, one of the Justices wrote that the science was inconclusive as to when human life begins. But long before that case, people such as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that human life begins at conception. And a fourth article, "The science is conclusive: That fetus is a baby," quots several scientific and academic and legal sources that state, for example: "In McGraw-Hill's textbook, Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th ed., ... biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan, writes, 'The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.'" An unborn baby is a human person, not a tadpole or a frog or a dog or a monkey.
Thus, Justice Samuel Alito was correct in writing the Court's decision: Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided from the outset. It was contrary to known science and had no basis in the U.S. Constitution. Now it is up to the states to pass laws that follow the Constitution. Pro-abortion women have gone to extremes over this decision: one of the most egregious examples is "Pro-abortion women threaten sex strike over Roe v. Wade reversal" telling that they will abstain from sex outside of marriage because of the Court's decision. At last, we have agreement between the Pro-abortion and Pro-life folks on abstinence!
In the proper context of marriage, a man's and a woman's sexual desires coincide: a man desires to have intercourse, and a woman desires to have a baby. This creates normal, healthy families. But the "hookup culture" after the 1973 Roe decision has deceived women to believe they have the same desires as men. The article "Supreme Court Decision May Force Young Women to Confront Sexual Reality" explains – "The hookup culture only benefited men. And men have benefited from abortion becoming a form of birth control. Abortion on demand meant that men impregnating women to whom they were not married came with no consequences. Abortion meant that men didn’t have to marry the woman they impregnated. Abortion meant that men didn’t have to raise the child they conceived. And abortion meant that men didn’t have to pay child support."
86% of all abortions result from having sex outside of marriage, a lack of abstinence. As for the remaining 16% of abortions, married couples' excuses of "not ready yet" or the financial cost of "unexpectedly expecting," there are more married couples seeking to adopt than there are babies in the U.S. available for adoption and there are well over 3,000 pregnancy care centers and pregnancy resource centers in the U.S. – see Here's Where to Go If You Need Help With Your Unexpected Pregnancy. The pro-abortion people argue – "What is the use of a new baby? It wakes us up at night with its crying, it makes stinky diapers, it's always outgrowing its clothes, it's very inconvenient and expensive... and it gets in the way of our having uninhibited sex!" But that "useless" baby might be the next Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Michael Jordan, or Ben Carson... if he or she (not "it") lives.
The pro-abortion folks are supreme hypocrites:
if they'd just practice on themselves
what they preach for others,
it would put an end to this foolish debate.
Go to ARC-News to read our free e-newsletters and Subscribe!
No comments:
Post a Comment