Saturday, April 23, 2016

What drives some women to abortion

To believe this site, it's the desire to get some plastic surgery on a proper schedule.
One such story was about a healthy woman, with whom sidewalk counselors had spoken, who came to Tiller’s to abort a healthy baby so as not to ruin her “tummy tuck.” That woman went through with her abortion in Wichita despite having no risk of suffering a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” [which was the given criteria for a late term abortion in Kansas]. Women were getting late-term abortions of viable babies on a regular basis for appallingly frivolous reasons. Tiller and his staff were thumbing their noses at Kansas law.”
Now, this is from Operation Rescue. Maybe they'll full of crap. But considering how women will many times procure abortions for reasons like 'Bad timing', 'I have enough kids, and by enough I mean 2' and otherwise, this is in the realm of possibility.

When situations like this arise, I think the reaction of many in the pro-life movement is to say (paraphrainge Futurama): "I dearly wish I could believe this wasn't true. So, I will."

4 comments:

planks length said...

First off, I want to make one thing crystal clear. I am adamantly opposed to abortion. I agree 100% that the pre-born child is a child - a human being, created in the Image of God. No compromise there. I wish there were no such thing as abortion, that no one would ever even consider getting one.

That said... There is one "pro-choice" argument I have never found a satisfactory answer to. This: Make abortion illegal, and women are going to get them anway. Only now, they will be "back alley" affairs, far more hazardous to the woman (and equally fatal to the child). So, instead of losing just the baby, we now are far more likely to lose both baby and mother.

Like I said, I cannot find a rebuttal to this argument. Someone help me out here.

Crude said...

So, instead of losing just the baby, we now are far more likely to lose both baby and mother.

I can only give my view, which may not satisfy you.

This isn't a numbers game. It's not like I look at this situation and go 'Oh, we'll lose 2? That's twice as many as 1! This plan is counterproductive!' It is not my responsibility to make sure that someone's planned murder inflects the least harm possible.

Beyond that, even on the numbers-game level, I find the reasoning bad. If numbers are what matter, then you'll have to tell me that changing abortion into something which involves a heightened risk of death will do nothing to discourage abortion. You may as well tell me that raising the cost of an abortion to 10k out-of-pocket won't impact the rate an iota, and women will simply do whatever it takes to get 10k as opposed to 'forgoing the abortion' or even 'altering their behavior'.

I don't buy either.

malcolmthecynic said...

That said... There is one "pro-choice" argument I have never found a satisfactory answer to. This: Make abortion illegal, and women are going to get them anway. Only now, they will be "back alley" affairs, far more hazardous to the woman (and equally fatal to the child). So, instead of losing just the baby, we now are far more likely to lose both baby and mother.

With due respect, that's a terrible argument you can use for pretty much any crime. Make spousal abuse illegal instead of strictly regulated, and husbands might seriously hurt their wives! We better keep it legal but regulated.

Make rape legal, but make sure it's not violent so less people die.

Make theft legal, but only if it's safe and rare.

It immediately bombs the smell test.

Sean Killackey said...

This reminds me of what Bernard Nathan's on said in his book "Aborting America." In response to Judith Jarvis Thomson's remark that if a woman. Had an abortions so she wouldn't have to postpone a trip to Europe, that would be morally indecent (not quite morally impermissible, mind you). He said that he had a case just like that!