Yes we do. This is a democracy (provided you reside in one, like America). And we have laws keeping tax dollars away from elective abortions for that reason.
There's a difference between paying for public education and infrastructure and paying for someone's elective abortion.
If not wanting to fund abortions is nitpicking, then expect a **** load of nitpicking.
Now it's no longer abortions, but elective abortions. When does it become elective and when is it necessary?
It's clear on the extreme sides when someone just doesn't want a child and gets an abortion. I agree that's just plain wrong to go and abort a baby because you don't want it. But I'm also not going to simplify that by saying don't have sex. That example of elective abortions also implies that a woman doesn't care or is in some way indifferent to being pregnant in the first place. It doesn't mean she didn't make an effort to not get pregnant but those efforts failed. No form of birth control is 100% effective. There is always a chance of pregnancy no matter how careful you are.
And it's clear on the other side when the mother is at risk of death or the child will be born with deformities or incapable of surviving on its own. There are so many ways a pregnancy can go wrong or something can happen that endangers one or both of them and a sacrifice must be performed. Do you save the mother and lose the child? What about a baby that will not live a good life. You save the child but lives a life of pain and difficulty incapable of living off life-support or suffering from deformities that make life impossible on their own?
That in itself ranges into just how much is too much of a difficult life? The deeper down this rabbit hole you go the more you find yourself making exceptions, back-tracking your comments, rephrasing your meanings and saying, "in that case..." and never finding your way out again.
Neither case of abortion should be easy and I really think you've got to have a callous heart to believe anyone is unaffected by having one. Yet that is exactly what many abortion opponents do: they paint a picture of "****es" who don't care about anything but themselves, want no children and aren't in any way responsible or respectable women who made any effort to not get pregnant in the first place.
It doesn't take being female to see how misogynist that line of thinking is.
Which leaves a large middle ground and that is what no one wants to discuss. Nothing is black and white, right or wrong when you discuss a topic of this depth. Trying to turn it into a I'm right, you're wrong, my way or the highway single solution dictum is why there will never be a compromise.
That and anti-abortionists are even less willing to compromise than those who are for abortion choices.
First of all, I feel as though any decent human being shouldn't have to state something obvious like "Of course woman shouldn't be neglected to have an abortion if her life was in danger" or "Victims of rape shouldn't still be forced to have their children anyway." I'm not apologizing for not making that clear because I shouldn't have to. Too bad. Try not being so quick on the gun next time.
Really? The Catholic Church and a good many other anti-abortion rights groups say otherwise. There are so many attempts to straight out ban abortion
under any circumstances and you failed to acknowledge it. I'm not being quick on the gun. I'm carefully making points that show just how little you seem to know on this subject.
Saying "any decent human being" shouldn't have to state that means you're saying most of your side isn't very decent.
And about the last part, I don't see how it's complicated. Trust me, I am in no way trying to make myself appear holier than thou. In a perfect world, two responsible adults (knowing the gravitas and potential consequences of sex) would be prepared if things went in that seemingly unfortunate direction, emotionally and financially. How can that be argued against?
What happens when two people are ready to have a family. They have the money, they have the house. The car, the jobs. Everything. They get pregnant.
Then they lose their jobs. The husband dies, their house is foreclosed because the economy crashes. There's suddenly an emergency where all the money saved up must be used. Should that pregnancy continue? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to abort the child if it's early enough?
I'm sure you would argue to put the child in adoption but there are so many children already in foster care that adding to it is only feeding a larger problem. That doesn't mean aborting the child should be taken lightly. I've repeatedly said it should never be done lightly but this attitude of yours fails to take into consideration reality. Things happen. They don't always go as planned and children aren't always possible at a given time.
No one I think wants to have an abortion and live with that. Some women handle it better than others. Some might have a brave front to it and claim it didn't effect them. Losing a child, either naturally or forcefully, is going to affect a parent.
Saying don't have sex is about the weakest and least possible solution to respond with yet it never goes away. It's a literal biological drive to have sex and reproduce. We're capable of stemming the reproduction part but we still have the urge for sex.
I think after this detailed response I'm through with this discussion. I have nothing more to add to it. There will never be a simple, easy, quick resolution to this and to believe otherwise is to stick your head in the sand and hope it fixes itself.
response up, the Catholic Church, despite your confusion, are full of decent human beings who feel abortion is never acceptable. At all. That you don't know this means you don't know very much about the argument or are very narrow in your knowledge of it.
