Whenever a popular excuse is shown to be invalid, the pro-activists come up with another one. It's another example of how younger people are at a disadvantage, simply because they have not been around long enough to hear the full range of faulty excuses.
Roe v Wade made abortion legal when I was in high school. With the propaganda that was popular at the time, some of my classmates asserted their approval: 'What about rape and incest?!' The logic behind this: only someone who was quite cold-hearted would say a victim should be forced to continue a pregnancy that resulted from such crimes. As I wasn't familiar with manipulative vocabulary at the time, I didn't quite grasp the reason for using the second word- after all, incest that results in pregnancy is rape. Their point, though: the word 'incest' often results in a much stronger negative reaction than simply saying 'rape.' However, when studies and statistics began to show few abortions resulted from these crimes, the pro-activists had to come up with something else.
The 'something else' was that an unborn child at any stage is nothing more than 'pregnancy tissue' and not actually a human being. This faulty excuse hung around for a long time, probably because ultrasound tests were not used on a routine basis. Unless there were high risk factors, these tests were generally not performed. When they came to be a common part of prenatal exams, though, anyone was capable of acknowledging the individual in a sonogram as a human being. So the pro-activists had to look for something else- including ways to rationalize and justify on-demand abortions.
We can look at the current state of this issue this way: either the pro-activists are unbelievably uninformed, or they simply do not care about the facts. Current excuses include 'a woman's own body'- although ultrasound makes it clear this is not the case; and 'women's health care'- although, unless a person's life is in danger or her health is truly at risk, abortion has nothing to do with health care at all. In addition, therapeutic abortion- a procedure needed to save a woman's life- was legal in some places long before Roe v Wade.
While younger people these days may or may not subscribe to these latest excuses, it's not likely they know the origins of abortion on-demand in the United States. The founder of 'Planned Parenthood' believed in, supported, and encouraged eugenics- not only to do away with the physically or mentally impaired, but to wipe out entire races and ethnicities that she deemed 'undesirables.' You can find plenty of information on the web- including her quotes- and here is a good place to start: http://www.iowartl.org/get-the-facts/planned-parenthood/margaret-sanger/
While statistics may vary from place to place, some recent studies showed the majority of individuals who have abortions are middle class to upper middle class white women in their twenties and thirties. Long after Margaret Sanger's comments on 'undesirables,' this particular group was addressed by a Junior High School English teacher named Ellen Peck. It may be worth noting Mrs. Peck's book, 'The Baby Trap,' was published before the Roe v Wade decision- abortion was still illegal.
Presenting herself as a “Zero-Population-Growth” activist, Mrs. Peck's 1971 book encourages a 'child-free lifestyle.' However, unlike most Zero-Population-Growth activists, it was not the approach of 'not bringing children into an over-crowded world full of pollution and crime.' Her approach was much more personal, advising women not to have children, and why a child-free life was somehow better.
First, she talked about all the time, money, resources, freedoms a person could have in life if she did not have children. Unfortunately, it seems this viewpoint is still popular. Second, she tried to scare women away from having children even if they wanted kids by insisting their husbands would not want them anymore and would not love them anymore- she advised women if they became mothers they would no longer be interesting, no longer be attractive, and their husbands would either start affairs with much younger (and child-free) women, or would dump them entirely. Third- and after the nuts-and-bolts ranging from selfishness to paranoia over losing spouses- Peck addresses the issue that difficult and illegal does not have to mean impossible: advising women on how to obtain abortions, and taking an exceptionally outrageous approach to the entire situation. She said if women could not find anyone to perform an abortion in their hometowns, they could treat the entire situation like a 'vacation.' Along with swimming pools and nice dinners, the process of having an abortion could be “fun.” I am not making this up- that is the word she used: “fun.”
Where I stand on the issue: there are some circumstances in which I believe abortion is not necessarily wrong, and the individuals deserve compassion, not judgment. I cannot even imagine what it is like to be a young girl who learns she is pregnant- afraid, desperate, not knowing what to do; and I cannot even imagine what it is like to be the victim of a sexual assault, made worse when it results in pregnancy. In the distant past, though, I did know a young woman in the latter category- when she was brutally raped at age 15, her father not only forced her to continue the pregnancy but forced her to keep the child. Faced with the daily reminder of what had happened to her, she lost her mind. Yes, there are circumstances in which abortion is not wrong. However, I also believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned, because Ellen Peck's viewpoint has become far too common. One recent example should make it clear: a young woman in her twenties posted that she had already had eight abortions- and stated as her rationalization that she 'doesn't want to have kids until she's in her thirties.' Eight lives ended- as nothing more than her 'choice'...
I've read that women will continue to have abortions even if Roe v Wade is overturned, and that's probably true. However, I'd stake a bet on it that there would be far fewer abortions- not simply because it would be against the law, but because it would no longer be passed off as 'health care' or a 'choice.'
Roe v Wade made abortion legal when I was in high school. With the propaganda that was popular at the time, some of my classmates asserted their approval: 'What about rape and incest?!' The logic behind this: only someone who was quite cold-hearted would say a victim should be forced to continue a pregnancy that resulted from such crimes. As I wasn't familiar with manipulative vocabulary at the time, I didn't quite grasp the reason for using the second word- after all, incest that results in pregnancy is rape. Their point, though: the word 'incest' often results in a much stronger negative reaction than simply saying 'rape.' However, when studies and statistics began to show few abortions resulted from these crimes, the pro-activists had to come up with something else.
The 'something else' was that an unborn child at any stage is nothing more than 'pregnancy tissue' and not actually a human being. This faulty excuse hung around for a long time, probably because ultrasound tests were not used on a routine basis. Unless there were high risk factors, these tests were generally not performed. When they came to be a common part of prenatal exams, though, anyone was capable of acknowledging the individual in a sonogram as a human being. So the pro-activists had to look for something else- including ways to rationalize and justify on-demand abortions.
We can look at the current state of this issue this way: either the pro-activists are unbelievably uninformed, or they simply do not care about the facts. Current excuses include 'a woman's own body'- although ultrasound makes it clear this is not the case; and 'women's health care'- although, unless a person's life is in danger or her health is truly at risk, abortion has nothing to do with health care at all. In addition, therapeutic abortion- a procedure needed to save a woman's life- was legal in some places long before Roe v Wade.
While younger people these days may or may not subscribe to these latest excuses, it's not likely they know the origins of abortion on-demand in the United States. The founder of 'Planned Parenthood' believed in, supported, and encouraged eugenics- not only to do away with the physically or mentally impaired, but to wipe out entire races and ethnicities that she deemed 'undesirables.' You can find plenty of information on the web- including her quotes- and here is a good place to start: http://www.iowartl.org/get-the-facts/planned-parenthood/margaret-sanger/
While statistics may vary from place to place, some recent studies showed the majority of individuals who have abortions are middle class to upper middle class white women in their twenties and thirties. Long after Margaret Sanger's comments on 'undesirables,' this particular group was addressed by a Junior High School English teacher named Ellen Peck. It may be worth noting Mrs. Peck's book, 'The Baby Trap,' was published before the Roe v Wade decision- abortion was still illegal.
Presenting herself as a “Zero-Population-Growth” activist, Mrs. Peck's 1971 book encourages a 'child-free lifestyle.' However, unlike most Zero-Population-Growth activists, it was not the approach of 'not bringing children into an over-crowded world full of pollution and crime.' Her approach was much more personal, advising women not to have children, and why a child-free life was somehow better.
First, she talked about all the time, money, resources, freedoms a person could have in life if she did not have children. Unfortunately, it seems this viewpoint is still popular. Second, she tried to scare women away from having children even if they wanted kids by insisting their husbands would not want them anymore and would not love them anymore- she advised women if they became mothers they would no longer be interesting, no longer be attractive, and their husbands would either start affairs with much younger (and child-free) women, or would dump them entirely. Third- and after the nuts-and-bolts ranging from selfishness to paranoia over losing spouses- Peck addresses the issue that difficult and illegal does not have to mean impossible: advising women on how to obtain abortions, and taking an exceptionally outrageous approach to the entire situation. She said if women could not find anyone to perform an abortion in their hometowns, they could treat the entire situation like a 'vacation.' Along with swimming pools and nice dinners, the process of having an abortion could be “fun.” I am not making this up- that is the word she used: “fun.”
Where I stand on the issue: there are some circumstances in which I believe abortion is not necessarily wrong, and the individuals deserve compassion, not judgment. I cannot even imagine what it is like to be a young girl who learns she is pregnant- afraid, desperate, not knowing what to do; and I cannot even imagine what it is like to be the victim of a sexual assault, made worse when it results in pregnancy. In the distant past, though, I did know a young woman in the latter category- when she was brutally raped at age 15, her father not only forced her to continue the pregnancy but forced her to keep the child. Faced with the daily reminder of what had happened to her, she lost her mind. Yes, there are circumstances in which abortion is not wrong. However, I also believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned, because Ellen Peck's viewpoint has become far too common. One recent example should make it clear: a young woman in her twenties posted that she had already had eight abortions- and stated as her rationalization that she 'doesn't want to have kids until she's in her thirties.' Eight lives ended- as nothing more than her 'choice'...
I've read that women will continue to have abortions even if Roe v Wade is overturned, and that's probably true. However, I'd stake a bet on it that there would be far fewer abortions- not simply because it would be against the law, but because it would no longer be passed off as 'health care' or a 'choice.'