While I hope to work with the editor for a future re-write, here is the original piece for your reading: How about Secularists for Sharia Law? To be an atheist is to support abortion.
There are a few scenarios that are commonly pointed to in an attempt to justify abortion. Since none of them can justify the killing of a human being after birth, neither do they justify the killing of a human being before birth. When it comes to abortion, there is no shortage of "What if?
What if the woman was raped? Some people appeal to them earnestly.
These "hard cases" are often used as a last defense by those who actually believe abortion should be legal no matter what the circumstances. They appeal to these more emotionally-charged circumstances in an attempt to move the focus away from the heart of the issue — which is the humanity of unborn children and the violence of abortion.
The best way to expose the fallacy of such claims is to simply broaden the context and apply them to children outside the womb.
No matter how you frame it, the difficulty that these circumstances present do not justify the death of an innocent human being. One of the historic mantras of the abortion industry goes like this: The problem, of course, is that if the child is already conceived, the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it.
How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted.
This is a bogus argument. Is certain death really the answer to potential neglect or abuse? In the broadest sense, the whole discussion of "wantedness" ignores a substantial reality. Even if the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a babyfamilies who are willing to adopt diseased babies of any race or ethnicity.
Obviously, many more babies are unwanted early in pregnancy than is the case later in pregnancy or after birth. It is the ready availability of abortion-on-demand, when a pregnant woman first has that natural question about how well she can handle a pregnancy, that leads to the tremendous number of abortions.
The question is humanity, not wantedness. Abortion advocates often argue that it is acceptable for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she cannot afford to raise a child. While they are careful to use noble and compassionate language, they are essentially arguing that if a baby is going to be too expensive, the mother has a right to kill it.
It assumes, in fact, the very thing that it must prove before the argument can hold any water. No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. On a practical level, there are more crisis pregnancy care centers in America today than there are abortion providers.
They all function to help bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, place for adoption which would relieve all future financial obligation.
When help is needed, help can be found. The only reason anyone uses the financial hardship argument to try and justify abortion is because they are assuming that human beings in the womb are qualitatively different from human beings out of the womb. But until abortion advocates can prove this to be so, financial distress can never justify abortion.
Poverty is not the issue. The humanity of the unborn child is. Generally speaking, abortion advocates would have you believe that putting an unborn child to death is an acceptable way to treat physical or mental disability.
In much the same way that they argue for aborting children who might grow up in poverty, abortion advocates also argue for the right to abort children who might grow up with a disability—as if disease or handicap somehow strips a person of their right to live and relegates them to a life of misery."[E]xcellent Watson has a gift for explaining complex arguments in a simple, easy to understand manner.
Watson's book is an important contribution to the growing literature on abortion stigma and the moral case for abortion, and its accessible language will make it .
Sep 15, · Introduction Abortion is a painful topic for couples facing a dilemma ©. The abortion debate deals with the rights and wrongs of deliberately ending a .
In the case of abortion protesters having abortions, it seems like they tend to believe their abortion is a regrettable necessity, whereas the other women in the clinic are baby-murdering sluts.
Abortion: An ethical dilemma. Words | 8 Pages. Abortion, the intentional termination of a pregnancy through surgical or medical devices, was legalized in An analytic examination of the flawed, and the important, arguments on both sides of the abortion debate.
Not able to find what you're looking for? Use the search bar for specific content or feel free to contact us for further assistance.