Abortion

I can never understand legal abortion beyond 6 weeks. I'll address possible arguments below. Note, the arguments in bold are not my beliefs but the most likely beliefs of someone who would disagree with me. Argument 1: Men shouldn"t have a voice in the conversation I"m not sure why I started with this one. Maybe its because it always bothered me the most. For decades, the most admirable quality of liberals has been their cry for equal representation of everybody in the political field. For them to turn around on the issue of abortion is frankly insane. The idea that I shouldn"t have an "voice" in one of the biggest problems in our country today goes against everything this country stands for. Arguing that a man shouldn"t contribute to the conversation is like a man saying in the 1920"s a woman shouldn"t discuss politics because she couldn"t vote. Holding this stance just hurts democracy. Pro choice people will argue that men cannot possibly know anything about the issue as only women get pregnant and we cannot "understand what women go through." That is like saying we shouldn"t ever have a female coach or general manager simply because women don"t play in the MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL, and cannot possibly understand what goes on. Therefore they shouldn"t make decisions for men. No sensible person would ever agree with that sentiment. Athough you could argue being a coach doesn"t take away the rights of the players, I believe anti-abortion laws don"t take away rights. I"ll get to that later. Argument 2: For most abortions, you just kill a "ball of cells." This to me is one of the most ridiculous pro-choice arguments. When you perform an abortion, you are killing a human life. Most abortions take place after 4 weeks. When I google, "when do most abortions occur" this was the result: (feel free to Google it I couldn't insert a picture.) A babies heart beats as early as 26 days. Brain waves at 7 weeks. Every organ neccessary for life a week later. Even if most abortions don"t occur after this point, the fact that they are even legal is astounding. I'd honestly would not argue too much with abortions at a stage like 3.5 weeks. The idea though that you can kill the baby a month or more later when it is much more developed is horrendous. You have to understand that when you perform an abortion, you are killing a human life. Some would say it is not a life until it is born, but this seems arbitrary. A fetus at 8.5 weeks resembles a new born much more than a new born resembles a 30 year old. Therefore, killing a new born and killing a fetus developed that much should both be illegal. Argument 3: "Don"t impose your Christian values on me" or "Don"t impose your morals on me." Okay, for me at least, I don"t view my pro life stance as a Christian value. I think if you agree that a baby is a human life, then abortion is murder. I believe this, and I think murder is wrong. US laws agree with me and murder is outlawed in many forms. Obviously. But it would be silly to argue that these laws impose the Christian faith on people. These laws are kept to improve society and ensure safety and order. I think pro-life laws would improve society undoubtedly. People who have been put up for adoption instead of being aborted have had huge impacts on society. The argument that the kid will just end up in a terrible orphanage/foster home doesn"t hold up when one considers that people such as Steve Jobs, Babe Ruth, and Malcom X were all given up at birth and raised in orphanages/foster homes. To say that the roughly 57,000,000 babies murdered since Roe V. Wade in 1973 wouldn"t have positively impacted our society is ignorant. Therefore, to improve society, and not to enforce Christian values, anti-abortion laws should be put in place. Even if one were to argue that morals differ from person to person at a secular level and the government shouldn"t determine morals, government can make laws that reflect the moral belief of the nation. According to a Gallup poll, a majority of the country considers abortion to be morally wrong. A small majority, to be fair, but if you include people who would make certain expections (like I would for life of the mother) it's above 50%. A nation can reflect the morals of its citizens, and these morals wouldn"t even be based in religion. But even if you believe the morals of a minority should be respected, just refer to my previous point about how pro-life laws improve society. Argument 4: Its a women"s right to chose; the government should respect that right. It's really not a choice women should have. At all. I know I"m going to offend a lot of women with this, but when it comes to reproduction, here is what I believe should be a women"s rights: 1) Right to readily available contraceptives. 2) Right to choose when and if they want to engage in intercourse. 3) Right to proper pre natal care. 4) Right to a high quality abortion in the cases of rape, mothers life, incest. Now I am aware there are certain realities that get in the way of these rights. Even though many countries and cities have made free contraceptives widely available, use clearly has not worked. Rape is the obvious caveat for number two, and any bill increasing spending on pre natal care would be shut down by budgeting adverse Republicans. Also, having a board decide if a women has been raped would similarly be an issue. However, despite these exceptions and problems, those are the factors that women get to chose. After making those decisions, if they get pregnant, they have responsibility over the life they have created. In no other facet of society do you have the choice to murder someone. Many pro-choice activists would argue that since the fetus is relying and using the women's body to survive, its the women's choice of whether or not to support this baby. This doesn"t hold up when someone actually thinks about it. If I were holding someone off a bridge, and I voluntarily let them go, it's murder. Although they were using my body and physical strength to survive, I"ll most likely be charged with a crime if I voluntarily release them. The example pro choicers would use is, "you can"t be forced to give blood or donate a kidney if you don"t want to." Yes, this is true. However, you aren"t responsible for that person getting sick or needing a kidney. But if you are responsible for the pregnancy, you need to bring the child to term. Also, I kind of find it ironic that liberals argue freedom in this scenario. In literally every other political field, liberals argue for more control and less personal freedoms. Gun control, healthcare, and economic policies are all prime examples. But suddenly, they flip this stance on abortion. How about this: what about the freedom to not have to fund abortions with taxpayer dollars? A columnist at Forbes complied a rough estimate and stated that roughly 24% of abortions recieve federal or state funding. Why should I be forced as a (future) taxpayer to support an action I find morally reprehensible? (Shoutout to Steven Crowder for giving me this idea.) I was running short on characters but I'll address any other arguments later.