Abortion Insanity

You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13

I was trying to find some logical justification for abortions. So far this is the best attempt I can find. Of course, there's not much logic in there...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/before-roe-6159.htm

"People in the United States don't know about these horrors. Nor do they remember what women's lives were like here before abortion became legal. Before 1973, single women who got pregnant were fired from their jobs. Younger ones were sent to maternity homes for unwed mothers and their children were put up for adoption. Married women who got pregnant were forced to carry pregnancies to term regardless of their circumstances — even if they had so many children that they couldn't afford to feed another one; even if they had metastasized cancer; even if their fetuses couldn't live outside the womb because these fetuses had developed without a heart or brain."

• A single woman getting fired because she is pregnant has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. The employer was absolutely wrong in firing her, and he should be punished for it; the baby shouldn't.
• Young pregnant women were sent to maternity homes. Heaven forbid someone tries to help a pregnant woman. So a woman should have the right to kill her baby because someone wants to help her?
• Their children were put up for adoption. OK, someone wants to raise the child the mother wants to kill, and that's a bad thing?
• A mother can't afford another baby. That's a legitimate concern. But maybe she could give the baby up for adoption instead of killing it. Why doesn't she kill her worst behaved kid instead? Oh yeah, that's illegal. Wait, so was killing the one in the womb. Oh, I know why: People would know she killed it instead of being her little secret between her and the abortionist.
• Metastasized cancer. Well let's see, if having the baby would kill mom, or she can't get proper cancer treatment because she's pregnant, then this one could be legitimate. If the argument, however, was that mom won't be around for the baby's first birthday, then I'd say adoption is a much more logical option. If a woman has a three month old and finds out she has cancer, she doesn't buy a gun and kill her baby, but she makes sure her will is in order and finds someone to raise the child.
• Even if the "fetuses" couldn't live outside the womb because it doesn't have a heart or brain. First, this just shows the rhetoric of the argument--they must avoid the word "baby" at all costs. There is no such thing as a fetus outside the womb. By definition, as soon as it is out of the womb it is no longer a fetus. Second, if the baby doesn't have a heart or brain, it isn't alive to begin with, so this isn't truly an abortion.

"Nowhere in scripture does it say women should not have reproductive rights."

• Does he mean the right to reproduce or the right to not reproduce? If it's the first, I would completely agree. But since we all know he really means the latter, how about "thou shalt not murder"?

"Tell them you are devastated and will commit suicide if you can't terminate this pregnancy."

• That should be grounds for putting the mother in a psych ward--not for killing the baby.

The only strategy of pro-abortion logic is to grasp on to extreme cases as a justification for routine cases. Some moms will die from giving birth, therefore all moms must be allowed to kill their babies. Some babies won't survive full term, therefore all moms must be allowed to kill their babies at will.

They throw out stories of moms undergoing illegal abortions and the complications they suffer. Should we feel sorry for them? Should we feel sorry for the poor man who tries to rob a bank to pay the bills but gets shot in the process? People die from overdosing on heroine, so should we have doctors dispensing it? And lots of people blow themselves up making meth, so we should get OSHA to make safe meth labs. And terrorists often get hurt when they try to blow other people up, so maybe when a terrorist shows up I should volunteer to kill myself so he doesn't need to get hurt.

Why can't we find a logical compromise? How about, if carrying the baby puts the mother's life in undue risk, then she can choose her life over the baby's. If the baby is already dead, of course it can be removed. Ironically, these same arguments make sense if a person goes to a doctor to have a leg amputated. If the leg is cancerous and will kill the rest of the body, of course it can be amputated. If the leg is healthy and the person wants it removed for any number of reason--already have enough legs, don't like the extra calories it requires, want to lose weight, or even has severe pain--no doctor would perform the surgery.