Abortion Matters
This story is featured in our election coverage.January 22, 1973 was a monumental day for women and children across the nation. Thirty-seven years ago, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States. In the 37 years since that decision was made, nearly 50 million abortions have been performed. That’s 50 million lives lost.
Now, I know that a lot of you reading this are probably pro-choice and you’re probably thinking, “Oh great. Someone else preaching at us that we should be pro-life.” That’s not what I’m here to do. I’m also not here to say that pro-lifers are awesome.
My opinion cannot change your opinion. But think about this: what would’ve happened if you had been an unplanned pregnancy? What would’ve happened if your parents—or your mother—had decided to abort you? You might not think that life begins at conception, but I do, and by that standard, every single doctor who has performed an abortion has performed a legalized form of murder.
Here’s another thing to consider. According to the American Humane Association, animal cruelty is a felony is 46 states and the District of Columbia. That means that if a person abuses, neglects or leaves an animal for dead in all but four states in the country, they face charges that could include imprisonment, probation or parole, loss of the right to vote or loss of occupational licensing.
The same goes in all states if you abuse a child. So why is abortion any different? Why did we freak out when we found out that Michael Vick condoned dog fighting but the fact that 50 million children have been deprived life doesn’t mean anything? I’m sorry, but that’s inhumane.
I can’t tell you to be pro-life or pro-choice. That’s your decision. But if you feel strongly one way or the other, you can do your part. All it takes is one vote. You might not think your vote makes a difference, but it does and it can. So go ahead and vote. You just might save a life.
Posted by Sarah Hayes
on Oct 26 2010. Filed under Elections.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
@Derek:
No, you COULDN’T care less. COULDN’T. If you could care less, you would care less.
I completely understood your argument. I didn’t miss your point. Your analogy was laughably amateurish. It was methodologically and fundamentally flawed…much like your command of the English language.
I’m not trying to harp on a point, I’m just suggesting that a well reasoned argument will always come off rather better when it’s backed up by proper grammatical and structural use.
Also, your first post? That wasn’t irony. Not by a long shot.
The third definition in the OED under the entry for the word preach is “earnestly advocate” and that is exactly what the author did. Giving an opinion (“a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”) inherently involves preaching.
There is nothing wrong with carrying these beliefs, but the author continues to deny that she’s proselytizing. Aggressively presenting contrary viewpoints with factual support is not breaking decorum. Breaking decorum would involve me reverting to ad hominem attacks, but you won’t see me doing that.
@Another CNU Alum: Thank you. I appreciate the fact that someone is backing me up, whether or not you agree with my opinion.
And, for the record, the point of this was for it to be an opinion piece. It was never meant to be an objective article about abortion, so if you’re mad at me for not presenting both sides of the issues, then I’m sorry. That wasn’t the purpose of this piece.
As for my “incessant views,” I’m not trying to push them on the rest of the population. I’ll say it outright: I believe that every human life is sacred and whether a child was conceived unexpectedly through poor planning, rape or something else, one individual woman’s comfort for 9 months–or yes, potentially the rest of her life–is no excuse to deny any child the right to life. But I’m not telling you that you have to believe that too. That is your decision, but as a citizen of the United States, I have a right to express my opinion. If you don’t agree with it, then you don’t have to read it.
@Pro-Choice’s #1 Fan: I’m not going to ridicule you for having an abortion. That was your decision. But your opinion doesn’t have an effect on my opinion and I do have a right to state it, whether you agree with me or not. Also, may I ask what my first memory of my childhood has to do with this issue? Whether a child’s brain is fully developed enough to process information at birth or not does not change the fact that once the child “pops out,” it is–without a doubt–alive.
@CNU student: I did not mean to imply that voting this November will have a significant impact on abortion, because I know it won’t. As I said in my previous comment, the point of this piece was to get students thinking and get them to realize that, if they have a strong opinion about something, they should do something about it. Voting is one of the privileges we have in this country and through it we have a chance to voice our opinions. The purpose of this article was not to say, “If you vote this November you can stop (or keep) abortion.” It was to say, “If you have opinions about political issues–like abortion–then stop telling them to all your friends and go do something about it.”
That’s all I have to say. I won’t be responding to anymore comments.
And to the fan person who expressed that you’re glad there is a former CNU student who has some common sense, what is this supposed to mean? I am curious.
Agree with Sarah’s views or not, I would not call her article preaching. It is a simple opinion article, just like the media. In media, you have different means of journalism– some people who want to present just the facts with no editorializing (although in many cases, they have their own minds made up, and you can pretty much see their opinions with the facts they present), some people who present opinions and say right out what they are. Which one is superior? The first approach is more traditional journalism, which I prefer better, when it’s done right- presenting both views and not trying to covertly place your bias in the story. The opinion side is appearing more and more, whether it’s on Fox News, CNN, or in people’s blogs. It’s a little bit more out there, and the writer puts more on the line. But at least with this angle, there is no deception. Just a straight-forward opinion. This is based frequently in facts, but also in beliefs and values that person carries.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with carrying beliefs and values, and expressing them to people? Isn’t that the sort of foundation our country was built on?
Last time I checked, we live in a country where we are free to express our political opinions. To call someone out as being distasteful and ignorant is practicing your own arrogrance, as to believe that your opinions are superior to theirs.
Of course, you should feel free to disagree. But please engage discussion with polite decorum. We have really lost how to do such a thing.
Thank you.
Please do not push your incessant views on the rest of the population. The fact of the matter is, you ARE trying to persuade others to take on your same opinion, so don’t preface your article otherwise.
Secondly, to bring our parent’s pregnancies into question is absurd. If my mother had made such a decision, then I would be none the wiser because I simply put, would not be here. Please tell me the first memory you have of your childhood. If it’s the minute you popped out and greeted the world, you’re being entirely dishonest, seeing how a child’s brain is not developed nearly enough to process information or create memory for many months or even 2 years.
Whether you believe that it is your right to express this opinion or not, the truth of the matter is that you WILL NOT be able to change the opinions of your fellow college students. Speaking from experience as a student who has had an abortion, my views have been set for many years, and while I could have never planned for this, I am entirely confident that I have made the right decision for myself, my partner, and my unborn child. While I expect to be ridiculed to no end right here on this page, I wouldn’t change my choice, because in the end, that is EXACTLY what it comes down to– MY choice. Not your’s, not the government’s, not anyone, but my own.
To close your argument with the phrase “You may save a life.” is distasteful and ignorant of someone who claims to not wish to change another’s opinion. Please choose your words more carefully next time, and remember your audience. Not everyone agrees with you, and those who do don’t need your sermon.
For the record, because I have already received a question from a friend about this post, by partner, I mean boyfriend who has discussed a future marriage with me.
I just want to point out that while it is important that you express your views, and do what you can to make a difference, voting this November will not have as big of an effect on abortion rights as is implied in your article.
First off, if Roe v. Wade were eventually overturned, this would NOT outlaw abortion. It would only return the decisions to the states. There are only 16 states with 45% support for criminalizing abortion, and only 10% of the countries average abortions occur in these 16 states (and the 10% could easily travel to the next state to get one), and this is not even counting the number of illegal and dangerous abortions performed.
Think about this: we could likely achieve more than a ten percent reduction in abortions by providing increased economic assistance and social support for pregnant women who are poor, since women in poverty have abortions at four times the rate of higher-income women?
Also, as a side note, criminalizing abortion does not mean a reduction in number of abortions. In Western Europe where abortion is legal and readily available, there are less than 10 abortions per 1,000 women- the lowest in the free world. BUT in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean there are almost 31 abortions per 1,000 women, in spite of the fact that abortion law are highly restrictive.
My point is that a vote for Republicans (or any pro-life candidate) is NOT a vote against abortion. It is a vote won over and taken advantage of by political operatives and the Religious Right to win over the conservative vote and bypassing issues that can really be addressed politically.
There are hundreds of thousands of children already waiting to be adopted.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
As of 2009 nearly 400,000 children were in foster care in the United States awaiting adoption. From 2002-2009 only roughly 50,000 children were adopted per year. There is no lack of children awaiting adoption and there is no need for more children to be put into that position.
I am also somewhat abhorred by your concept of surrogate parenthood. Women should carry the embryo to term in the hopes that some wealthy, but infertile, do gooding young couple swoops in and soothes her birthing pains with money? Really?
I really have to call BS on the whole “I’m not preaching pro-life values” line. That is exactly what you’re doing. Just because you claim you aren’t doesn’t make it kosher. It’s right there in black and white. If you make arguments like this, especially about a controversial topic, prepare to back them up.
Could you please address your stance on victims of rape and fetuses who possess congenital birth defects that result in stillborn babies or fatality shortly after birth?
@Pro-choice: While I agree that yes, many of the women who have abortions are at or below the poverty line and would be unable to care for their child, did you ever consider the fact that they could put the child up for adoption? Granted, the woman would still have to go through the nine months of pregnancy, but there are hundreds of couples–I personally know several–who are unable to have their own children but would be more than happy to adopt the child of a mother who is unable to care for it. And I know many of those couples, particularly those who are financially stable, even go so far as to pay for all of the medical expenses of a mother who agrees to give up her baby to them after birth. Poverty is not an excuse for killing innocent children who have absolutely no say in the matter; I don’t care how you spin it. A life is a life, and who are you and who am I to decide that a child’s life doesn’t matter?
And I’m sorry if you interpreted my statement of facts to be preaching. That was not my intent. I simply wanted to make students realize that this is an important issue; whether you think it’s important because you believe abortion is murder or you think it’s important because you believe in a woman’s right to choice doesn’t make a difference. My intent was not to make students pro-life if they are pro-choice. My intent was to make students recognize that if they have a strong opinion about an issue, and clearly you do, then they should do something about it and vote.
“Now, I know that a lot of you reading this are probably pro-choice and you’re probably thinking, “Oh great. Someone else preaching at us that we should be pro-life.” That’s not what I’m here to do.”
That’s exactly what you did mere sentences later.
Unfortunately the abortion issue is far more complex than you make it out to be. You pose that human life is inherently sacred and should therefore be protected. This view and abortion are not mutually exclusive and I’ll tell you why. More than 50% of abortions in the US are performed on unwed mothers who lack the resources to raise a child. Should this woman really give birth to a child she cannot take care of? Is it really better to allow this child to live a life of neglect and poverty than to abort it? Children are already starving and I don’t mean in Africa. I mean right here in America–in Newport News. There is no reason a woman who can honestly say she cannot provide for a child should carry it to term. Even the Bible in Ezekiel 18:20 it says the child will not suffer the sins of the parents.
Another issue is that approximately 5% of abortions are performed on fetuses who are known to have congenital defects that will result either in stillbirth or fatality within a few months to years of birth. Do your really want to add to the trauma of a woman who finds out her child will not live by forcing her experience the birth of her already dead child? Would you honestly tell that woman she is murdering her child on the worst day of her life?
And how about victims of rape? Should they be forced to experience forced pregnancy and give birth to a child they did not want nor ask for?
The key word in pro-choice is choice. Women should have the right to choose whether they have a child. It is their body not yours. Your body is sovereign territory and never let anyone tell you otherwise. America is founded on the ideals of freedom and that freedom implies that you have no more say over my body than I have over yours. That freedom also implies that you may have to tolerate the seemingly intolerable. If you are against abortion then by all means don’t have one, but do not limit the ability of others to do so. Instead focus your energy on the source of the problem: sexual education. Sexual education is abysmally poor in America and is the cause of thousands of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Abstinence only programs were widespread until only recently and have sown the seeds for thousands more unplanned pregnancies. Consider again that more than 50% of abortions are performed on women who will be unable to care for their child. This means that it is likely most of these women are living at or below the poverty line. In these instances unplanned pregnancies kept to term result in a cyclic pattern whereby these children ultimately grow up in a poverty stricken school system and receive the same poor sexual education that their parents received just years before and it is only a matter of time until they are faced with their own unplanned pregnancy.
Others here comment that it is ludicrous to compare a human life to that of a bald eagle. First of all the 5 year penalty business is an outright lie. No such law exists and the maximum penalty for anything related to bald eagles is 2 years. Sorry to say you’ve been duped. Now, I would argue that it is indeed an apt argument for the following reasons. Bald eagles were on the verge of extinction and ALL animals near extinction are placed on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species list and they become federally protected to that they might be protected from poaching. They were on the verge of no longer existing. Forever. Humans on the other hand are so populous that great portions of our species go without food for days and weeks at a time. The United Nations statistics show that 60% of all child deaths between 2002 and 2008 were due to starvation. These are children who died a long and extremely painful death that could have easily been avoided with minimal suffering.
CNU Alum, I love you.
I’m glad there’s a (former) CNU student who has some kind of brain and common sense.
Aww, did someone call the grammar police on me?
You’re feisty, I like you. Not to mention, you sound super intelligent. I apologize for the grammar mistakes, I only had about a minute to post that statement. Those darn apostrophes. I understand that when you are as smart as you are, you really can’t extract the main point of a statement with a grammar issue like that. I understand, it gets a little complicated for you, trying to sort out what I really meant. That must be the reason you completely missed my point.
I could care less if an animal is endangered, what I care about is the fact that we protect a bird, but not a human. If we are going to protect the embryos of birds, then we ought to protect human embryos.
But again, what do I know… after all, I have grammar mistakes :[. I’ll leave the real reasoning and rational arguing to smart people like you!
Good point, Derek!
It’s totally a valid comparison, too, because humans were also a completely endangered species just like the bald eagle!
Bald eagles only lay one to three eggs a year, exactly the same way humans can only produce one to three babies a year!
Bald eagles were in danger, during this century, of becoming completely extinct because humans were destroying their natural habitat in an effort to increase modernity and production, exactly the same way humans were in danger, during this century, of becoming completely extinct because bald eagles were destroying our natural habitat!
You’ve totally made a rational, well thought out argument for the pro-life stance!
You also totally didn’t make any grammatical mistakes! “EMBRYO’S of birds” is completely right, and doesn’t make you look kind of dumb at all!
I’ll take it a step further. The leading argument is that human embryos are not actually human until birthed, or when they “self-realize”. Therefore, do what you want with them till then.
Irony: If you break a bald eagles egg, you will go to jail for 5 years… We protect the EMBRYO’S of birds, but not humans? Sad world we live in.