Kaelik wrote:1) Why not start and end with the moral arguments? Because all you are "proving" with your manipulated statistics with no context is that we should have safer abortions, and yet you are strongly against safer abortions.
Sure, I could start and end with a moral argument. Somehow it would not be “Den” like but I will do anything once.
Abortion is a moral wrong that ends the life of a human being. The fact that is also occurs naturally does not mitigate the moral wrong in any manner whatsoever; just as the fact that people do starve to death mitigate the moral wrongness of deliberately starving a person to death.
Abortion is a procedure that is sometimes necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. This is an application of the principle of double effect, although in some cases this is stretch of the application. The most clear cut example is when implantation occurs in the fallopian tubes. In general the principle of double effect can be applied when there is no alternative that does not involve a inherent evil of some sort.
In the United States, Abortion is allowed for any reason whatsoever. As a result of this abortion is often used as a last “safety net” option to contraception.
In the United States, the organization “Planned Parenthood” is a major provider of abortions. (Although technically speaking they perform more “reversible” contraception procedures – 2,360, 796 in 2007 – then they do “emergency contraception kits” – 1,423,365 in 2007 – or abortions – 305,310 in 2007 – source their own 2007-2008 annual report.) They are also one of the two biggest lobbyists for absolute rights to unregulated abortions in the United States. They go beyond simple lobbying and actively employ lawyers to ensure the unregulated status for abortions. They are also strongly involved not only in “education” of the young but in indoctrination of the young to trust the Planned Parenthood brand.
Ignoring, for a moment, the origins of this organization in 1916, (by
Margaret Sanger a strong supporter of negative eugenics, the same ideology that drove a lot of the Nazi Germany forced sterilization policy) Planned Parenthood is the provider, lobbyer, legal defense fund, and youth indoctrination medium for “abortion on demand,” which at the very least is a conflict of interest. Wrapped under the notion of being a special right, at the very least they have the same moral lack of standing as the tobacco industry in the mid 20th century.
The tobacco comparison is an interesting one. In order to promote their product, companies deliberately hid important medical information. Since they knew they were selling a fatal product, they deliberately put in additives to their product that were known carcinogens. They deliberately attempted to gain the confidence of youth in order to promote their product to the next generation.
It becomes more important when considering that the Pro-Abortion Law lobby groups often use the banner “Pro-Choice” but fail to provide real “informed” choice. They deliberately hide the risks and long term complications of the abortion procedures. They deliberately hide the fact of the development of the fetus, especially in terms of abortions well into fetal development if not outright viability. They even hide the fact that not all abortions are perfect and the result of a failed abortion can be the birth of a live human being into the world, a birth which, more often than not, they deliberately kill through neglect afterwards.
This, in and of itself is 75% of the work that most pro-life organizations do; preventing even further codification of the special status of abortion in state law (New York is a constant problem in this regard; we are the abortion capital of the United States for a reason, you know) getting the message out on the real and moral status of the pre-born and alerting parents to the forced indoctrination of their young while trying to avoid fully informing the parents who are the legal guardians of their young.
Thus we have several moral dilemmas. The first is the elimination of the cloak of secrecy that is deliberately maintained by the abortion industry. The second is the elimination of the far extremes. Last but not least is the overall reduction of the dependence on the procedure.
Here tobacco provides us with a logical example of two possible scenarios. You could just blatantly make it illegal, just as it was before Roe v Wade. Pot is blatantly illegal and we all know people still smoke it. The other is through the force of knowledge and information, present the moral high ground and let the people decide to take that.
The later isn’t perfect (there is a recent rise in the percentage of smokers in the United States – probably due to the bad economic times) but it’s probably the best plan that we know of.
