How seriously misled must one be to hold this viewpoint? What kind of lies and catch-phrases and modern-day feminist rhetoric must've been fed to these women throughout their lives? Isn't the right to bodily integrity just that - the right of each person to maintain his or her whole, healthy body? Is abortion not also an elective surgery that is typically done for non-therapeutic reasons? How can people believe that while it is wrong to intentionally cut off a healthy body part on a tiny newborn, it is okay - and should be legally protected as a basic "right" - to intentionally kill that same baby a few months earlier? Aren't these *both* ethical issues? And while surely it is unethical to amputate parts of babies for non-medical purposes, at least those babies usually get to remain alive!
I appreciate the speaking out that others do about treating babies as feeling, individual human beings who should have the right to bodily integrity and to being cared for gently - I do it myself, obviously - I think abortion is the gravest issue of all in how we think of babies in our culture. If we want people to change their views of babies as inconvenient problems that are exhausting and draining and need to be "put in their place" and trained into not being "manipulative," then we need to start at the root... babies in the womb are a precious gift, a gift that extends into their babyhood after birth and beyond into childhood. Children are not just inconveniences - and until we stop seeing them as disposable before they are born, then how can we expect them to be treated respectfully as born babies? Babies in the womb need to be treated gently and with respect, too. Perhaps abortion does get more attention than genital integrity of baby boys... so yes, I can understand if a person chooses to raise awareness about that issue while not mentioning abortion. But because I see abortion as the worst treatment possible for a baby, I will write about it.
Abortion is also just about the most unnatural thing one can do to her baby or herself. In attachment parenting circles, there is much emphasis on natural living. Making a choice to kill an unborn baby - to disrupt the natural process - is going to have a negative impact on the body! It is not natural in the least, which is why I cannot figure out why people who focus on natural living many times support abortion as a "right" of women.
I think there are so many myths and lies that are fed to women under the guise of "choice" and "women's rights" and such. Most women who are rabidly protective of a woman's "right" to choose have never had an abortion themselves, nor will they ever have one. They want to protect this ideal that they have been fed. They think that if abortion is not legally protected, then women are somehow inferior to men, that we are oppressed. But God gave us this gift of being able to carry new life! This is a precious gift that sets us apart as women - it does not make us inferior, just different biologically. And we need to protect and cherish that special gift from God! What a privilege it is, what an honor!
What women are NOT told about abortion before they get one:
That most women regret it after having it done.
That their risk for breast cancer increases after an abortion, particularly if it was their first pregnancy. (click for source)
That the woman in the major supreme court case which legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, is now adamantly opposed to abortion. (here's just one source)
Many women suffer from depression, anxiety, and even suicidal tendencies post-abortion.
Babies in-utero can feel pain. They often have a heartbeat and are able to move and are developing most of their body parts at the time they are aborted.
Abortion has medical risks to the mother as well. As "safe" as it can be made in a clinic, it is never completely safe - just like any surgical procedure. And it sure as heck isn't safe for the baby!
Sometimes abortions fail. The baby is born alive instead, at which point the doctors suddenly have to change from trying to kill the baby to trying to save its life, simply because of its change in location. How does that make any logical sense at all????? (Gianna Jesson is an example)
It can never, ever be morally permissible to trample upon the right to life of another. No right less than the right to life itself gets precedence over another's rights to convenience... or any other "rights" they have. When it crosses the line to killing another innocent person, then it is murder, plain and simple - not a "right."
There is much more I could write on this... perhaps I will begin another series of posts. ;)
