Please note that what I usually say in these threads are not personal. I may sound a bit abrupt or pushy but I am generally not commenting on you or anyone as a person. Just a disclaimer. :)
I was just saying that the people who thinks that they're making the world a better place by banning abortion solely based on thier princles are wrong.
And I would argue that those who think that their principles (that being those who don't have good families are better of dead) are a better alternative may not actually be making the world a better place either.
China and India currently have an imbalance number of males and females. This is due to families having a cultural perference towards sons and the abortion of baby girls. It would not be a surprise that if the baby is born a girl and there are no records of such a birth, the girl will mysteriously "disappear." If the girl is lucky, she'll be put up for adoption.
I'm sure you can find a lot of people in China and India to justify this. Why let this girl be born if everyone will wish she was a boy? For some families, they can only have one child. Why waste that precious spot on a girl who will later marry into another family? Why subject the girl to an orphanage so that she can, at best, be adopted by some foreigner and at worse, live the rest of her childhood in an orphanage? Now a boy would be MUCH better off.
How different is this mode of thinking from the one you expressed earlier? I can argue that by allowing abortions, we will be allowing people to abort babies for any sort of reason they can come up with. The baby may have blue eyes but you wanted brown? Abort it. The baby may be a girl and not a boy? Abort it. That baby may not be tall enough, strong enough, pretty enough...let's just abort it.
I do not deny that bouncing from one foster home to another is a horrible experience. As someone whose brother is autistic, I don't deny that it's a tough life for those who have some form of disability. But I do find it curious that instead of suggesting we fix the adoption system, we should just make sure there's no one occupying it instead.
What I strongly object to isn't the abortion itself but the intent of the abortion. There's a difference between thinking "that's just a thing and like a toenail, I should just cut it off" and "this is a potential person which I personally think won't amount to anything good or will be unhappy. I'll save everyone the trouble and just kill it while I still can."
Don't misunderstand here, I'm not anti-choice. While I do think women should have the right to choose, I think suggesting that this is just (and only just) about the woman is missing all the other baggage this issue comes with. I can understand aborting the baby if both the mother and the father do not want it. Neither of them want to be parents and both of them probably have strong personal beliefs that bringing that child into the world is wrong. That's their choice, their decision to make and while I may not personally agree, I am not part of the equation in that matter.
Yet for all this talk about controlling destiny, nobody really talks about the father's destiny. If this was about deciding your own destiny, then who else is more fit to decide the father's destiny but the father himself?
Why should the mother be allowed to carry that baby if the father doesn't want it? Why should he be forced to pay child support? Why are we not subjecting mothers to abortions?
I don't necessarily agree with what I'm arguing but I find it interesting that it's hardly considered. I'm a girl so I appreciate all this power but I know that this power is taken at the expense of another. If I wanted to keep the baby, the father is going to come along for the ride whether he wants to or not. It isn't fair but if I'm going to risk a pregnancy, then he can risk being a father.
And let's all be nice here. :( No need to be rude..: Black Kitty :.