In a recent op-ed titled “If We’re Going to Talk About Abortion This Election Year,” the author implies that pro-lifers oppose abortion as “a façade under which they continue the archaic and outlived practice of controlling women.” This theory that pro-lifers are sexist against women is a convenient one that pro-abortion groups love to use, but it ignores the facts. A recent poll of about 1,000 random Americans actually found that around 40 percent of women identify as pro-life on abortion, while 48 percent of men identify as pro-life. Certainly, the gender gap is clear, but these facts don’t suggest that the pro-life movement is driven by sexism. If pro-lifers oppose abortion in order to suppress women, isn’t it somewhat odd that 40 percent of women identify as pro-life? Suggesting that pro-lifers are driven by sexism may sound reasonable on the surface, but the numbers simply do not support this claim.
The accusation of sexism also distracts from the substance of the debate. In a debate over this highly-charged moral issue, intentions matter. To pro-lifers, abortion is literally a matter of life and death, and groundlessly claiming that the other side opposes abortion because they want to control women blatantly misrepresents the intentions of the pro-life movement. As expected, there will be a small number of people with bad intentions in any debate — on both sides of the issue. However, suggesting that sexism underlies the pro-life movement is as preposterous as claiming that the desire to kill children underlies the pro-abortion movement.
Now, in the op-ed, the author does make an argument that sounds reasonable on the surface. But once you consider what the argument is actually saying, it falls apart. First, as the author herself admits, the child has the ability to survive outside the mother’s womb at 24 weeks, “thanks to advances made in modern medicine.” However, the author states that, prior to 24 weeks, the child’s “survival is entirely contingent on the mother,” and “[t]he right to abort during this stretch should not be taken away.” So, in other words, the author is claiming that the child can be aborted as long as he or she is still dependent on the mother. Why, though, does the child’s dependence on the mother have anything to do with whether or not the child is considered alive? Does dependence indicate a lack of life? Indeed, if we were to follow this logic, wouldn’t that mean that any human who is disabled and bedridden is not alive? In actuality, this dependence argument could easily be applied to both cases. Children are still dependent even after they are born. If we placed a five-year-old in the middle of a forest without any support, the child probably wouldn’t survive very long. Does this mean that the five-year-old is not alive? Of course not! I would never suggest that abortion supporters believe in killing five-year-old children, but it’s tough to justify the selective application of this argument only to children inside the womb.
It’s also important to understand why pro-lifers oppose abortion. It is not because of sexism. As a pro-lifer myself, I can tell you exactly why I oppose abortion: because I believe that God creates each and every child inside the womb at conception, and I believe that to end the life of any child inside the womb is murder. Simply put, I oppose killing a child inside the womb for the same reason I oppose killing a child outside the womb. We continue to oppose the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade for the same reason abolitionists opposed the Supreme Court ruling on Dred Scott v. Sanders: because the Supreme Court is not God, and it is not perfect. The Court is perfectly capable of making a flawed decision, just as it did in Dred Scott, and just as it did in Roe v. Wade.
In comparison, liberals often say that it’s better to not administer the death penalty in case the convicted person is innocent. We know that the child in the womb has not committed any crimes, and yet liberals don’t seem to apply the same argument to the child. I do understand that abortion supporters have good intentions behind their support of abortion and are genuine in their beliefs. If we are going to discuss abortion, great! Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both have arguments that they wish to make. I simply ask that pro-lifers be granted respect in acknowledging that, even though we disagree with abortion supporters, we have good intentions.
Austin Holley is a College freshman from La Porte, Texas.
I do not think you’re really addressing why the first author, and people in general, are pro-choice. It is because you’re taking your religious beliefs and prescribing restrictions on what a woman can do with her body.
You even say it yourself, “I believe that God creates each and every child inside the womb at conception, and I believe that to end the life of any child inside the womb is murder.”
What if a woman doesn’t hold the same beliefs? Yours are more correct and so you take away her fundamental right to do what she wants with her body? People call it sexist for a variety of reasons, but a big part is that it should be her decision to make, not yours and especially not the majority older white men in congress. Pro-life movements may be based on religion but in essence they are men controlling the actions of women.
I do not think you’re really addressing why the first author, and people in general, are pro-choice nor why pro-life views are considered sexist. It is because you’re taking your religious beliefs and prescribing restrictions on what a woman can do with her body.
You even say it yourself, “I believe that God creates each and every child inside the womb at conception, and I believe that to end the life of any child inside the womb is murder.”
What if a woman doesn’t hold the same beliefs? Yours are more correct and so you take away her fundamental right to do what she wants with her body? People call it sexist for a variety of reasons, but a big part is that it should be her decision to make, not yours and especially not the majority older white men in congress. Pro-life movements may be based on religion but in essence they are men controlling the actions of women.
I just want to point out that your language (“a right to do what she wants with HER OWN body”) presupposes that a fetus is not its own life. Not saying you are invalid or wrong; you simply haven’t responded to the pro-life position because you are only restating your own conclusion, that life does not begin at conception or shortly thereafter.
Why is an egg or sperm not a life as well? Like a fetus, they represent a potential for life. The answer is simple. Until a fetus is capable of surving outside the mother’s body it is a part of her body and only the potential for life. The comparison of leaving a 5 year old alone in the woods is ridiculous and about what you would expect from someone so blinded by their own bias they can’t see the fallacy of their argument. A balance needs to be drawn between the state forcing women to be incubators and the fetus, and there is clear majority support for allowing abortion at least up to 24 weeks. Once the fetus is viable outside the woman’s body the question admittedly is more complicated and my own position is that you still can’t force a woman to carry to term but the option at the point is a c section delivery or induced labor and not abortion.
It scares me when people make moral arguments citing majority support.
I think it’s immoral for the state to assert control over a woman’s body. You’re so blinded by your own bias you think that you have the monopoly on morality. You don’t.
What moral assertions have I made?
I read your reply on my phone and if I misinterpreted it then my apologies. My point is that neither side of the debate can definitively claim the moral high ground so it comes down to a balancing of rights where the courts have already decided (Roe v. Wade) which I obviously feel was the right decision and nothing has changed to make this a situation as with Dred Scott so any comparison of the two makes no sense. My reference to the majority opinion is really with respect to any ability to change the law as it stands through elections and then Supreme Court nominations. Those things are decided by “the majority” and so long as the majority that supports choice is vigilant then the law should not be changed.
I have posted a non religious support of pro life and the bigots at the Emory Wheel find it offensive that I support life, without religious involvement. I don’t think they know how to handle that. So they delete it. The post was not offensive in any way, I just support pro life, non religious support, and their brains simply cannot wrap around that concept so they delete it. Wow what mind control goes on at the campus. I guess the censors are extremely bigoted.
You can only post on this site if you are pro life. The Bigots at the Emory Wheel will not allow you to post an opinion that differs from theirs. This is the what the campuses are producing, a non free speech zone. If they don’t agree with your opinion, they will not let it be read. Censorship at it’s finest. Think North Korea, China, Emory.
You note that 40 percent of women and 48 percent of men are pro-life which means the majority are pro-choice even using your own statistics. With younger people the pro-life numbers are even lower. So what you are trying to do is force your views on the majority and deny women a right they have had for some 40 years. I doubt you will succeed but I think everyone who supports a woman’s right to choose needs to remain vigilant because there are people like you running around out there. Just remember that the passion in this debate is not limited to your side.
I don’t think anything I have read, either in the article or the comments that indicates anybody writing has any contact with the real world. First.. there are no laws that will stop abortion, all they can stop is safe and legal abortions ..Abortions were done before abortion was legal and with Horrific enough results, dead women, sterility that the Baptist Church originally supported legalization , narrowly to be sure http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html but legal in some cases, to end the killing of women by self administered or incompetently done abortions.
And you have to ask yourself, why would somebody make the choice to have an abortion back in the days in Roe V Wade it had a lot to do with the social and religious damnation for having a child out of wedlock, this is where the sexism, comes in.. it’s all on the woman, the blame, the shame, the responsibility.. what judgement falls on the father? Back then when Roe V Wade was adjudicated single parenthood was rare.. women went off to special places and came back later without the child and the child was sold or adopted out, Catholic charities literally kidnapped 1000’s of children , telling their mothers they died at birth and then selling the children to “good” families https://adoption.com/forums/thread/381906/the-truth-is-out-about-adoptions-from-the-70-039-s-back-to-the-1900/ file:///C:/Users/CeeDee/Downloads/Dan_Rather_Reports_715.pdf
Today it Is different of course, now almost half of all babies are born out of wedlock http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360990/latest-statistics-out-wedlock-births-roger-clegg and Guys sing songs about their “Baby mommas” and less than half of the fathers pay child support http://time.com/3921605/deadbeat-dads/ the linked to article explains it is complicated , many do the best they can, support in kind with gifts instead of money , averages maybe $60 a month… but nary a word that parenting is more than a check, Parenting is mostly being there, it is time and physical care. This means in most the truly important ways the mother is on her own.. and abandonment by the father is the most often reason given for woman making an incredibly hard and unwanted choice to have an abortion .. so she can feed and care for the kids she may already have or she just can’t face parenthood alone. But all the judgement is on the woman, all the responsibility, all the sacrifice and that is why it is still sexist. you want to reduce abortions and you really really care .. address the issues that force women to have to make the choice in the first place. And what is this nonsense about a child being able to survive at 24 weeks .. have you ever even met a child, they can survive on their own until they are at least two years old. Want to save children, million and a half born babies die every year from preventable disease bad water and starvation..
It’s like I said you aren’t going to stop abortions by passing a law or criminalizing it, you can only stop safe legal abortions like that.. if you really want to reduce abortions address the issues that force women to make such choices… everything else is vanity and ego tripping and false morality. a BS gotcha I’m more moral than you are because I am blind to the millions of children that die every year after they are born.
I don’t think anything I have read, either in the article or the comments that indicates anybody writing has any contact with the real world. First.. there are no laws that will stop abortion, all they can stop is safe and legal abortions ..Abortions were done before abortion was legal and with Horrific enough results, dead women, sterility that the Baptist Church originally supported legalization , narrowly to be sure http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne… but legal in some cases, to end the killing of women by self administered or incompetently done abortions.
And you have to ask yourself, why would somebody make the choice to have an abortion back in the days in Roe V Wade it had a lot to do with the social and religious condemnation for having a child out of wedlock, this is where the sexism comes in.. it’s all on the woman, the blame, the shame, the responsibility.. what judgement falls on the father? Back then when Roe V Wade was adjudicated single parenthood was rare.. women went off to special places and came back later without the child and the child was sold or adopted out, Catholic charities literally kidnapped 1000’s of children , telling their mothers they died at birth and then selling the children to “good” families https://adoption.com/forums/th… http://www.adoption-truth.com/… http://www.axs.tv/news-and-doc…
Today it Is different of course, now almost half of all babies are born out of wedlock http://www.nationalreview.com/… and Guys sing songs about their “Baby mommas” and less than half of the fathers pay child support http://time.com/3921605/deadbe… the linked to article explains it is complicated , many do the best they can, support in kind with gifts instead of money , averages maybe $60 a month… but nary a word that parenting is more than a check, Parenting is mostly being there, it is time and physical care. This means in most the truly important ways the mother is on her own.. and abandonment by the father is the most often reason given for woman making an incredibly hard and unwanted choice to have an abortion .. so she can feed and care for the kids she may already have or she just can’t face parenthood alone. But all the judgement is on the woman, all the responsibility, all the sacrifice and that is why it is still sexist. you want to reduce abortions and you really really care .. address the issues that force women to have to make the choice in the first place. And what is this nonsense about a child being able to survive at 24 weeks .. have you ever even met a child?, they can’t survive on their own until they are at least two years old. Want to save children, million and a half born babies die every year from preventable disease bad water and starvation..
It’s like I said you aren’t going to stop abortions by passing a law or criminalizing it, you can only stop safe legal abortions like that.. if you really want to reduce abortions address the issues that force women to make such choices… everything else is vanity and ego tripping and false morality. a BS gotcha I’m more moral than you are because I am blind to the millions of children that die every year after they are born and I don’t dare speak back to a man and tell him to man up and be a father, because men are different, gosh, they don’t even sin when they make babies .but lets stick it to the women. Praise God.