An abortion debate prompt card
Pro-abortionists, the next time you get into an argument with a anti-abortionist, quote this to them.
Most young people in local authority care are destined to end up in prison, homeless or working as prostitutes, a report by a think tank claims.
Let’s get the ones who are already here sorted before we bring any more unwanted kids into the world, shall we?
EDIT: Pro-lifer changed to anti-abortionist. The term ‘pro-life’ is, of course, Unspeakable.
Posted on September 21st, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Have you checked out debate at(abortionclinnicdays)-the reality show.
This one? Will have a look…
Good prompt card!
I’m not sure the word “pro-abortionist” is quite right though. Sounds like they actively encourage it. I think “pro-abortionist” is the label anti-abortionists give to pro-choicers.
Or something.
That’s the level of justification now? Many children in the care of the State will have screwed up lives so better to kill them all first?
Well Tim, it’s no less simplistic or more emotive than your ‘child killing’ argument, it would seem.
Bitacle Blog Search Archive - An abortion debate prompt card…
[...] Pro-abortionists, the next time you get into an argument with a anti-abortionist, quote this to them. [...]…
I agree with Tim; I think it’s a dreadful argument. It’s a very good one for improving the standard of local authority care for children, but not for abortion.
I see quoted in the BBC article which you cite
Doubtless there’s a great danger she’ll become pregnant before too long. Doubtless, too, she’d be very well-advised to have an abortion when she does.
However, I think you might feel rather uncomfortable advancing to her this particular argument in favour of her terminating the pregrancy, would you not?
I had an abortion at 24 because I knew that I couldn’t feed myself well enough, let alone feed a child in me also. I never regretted it. Later, I had twins with an abusive man and left him to continue my degree. At a rally for Hillary Clinton there was a proLifer heckling Hillary, so I went up to the woman and explanined that I had 3 jobs and had to take 12 hrs a semester to get loans, so I would appreciate it if she would come over and watch my kids for free while I improved their Lives-children who were here NOW. I gave her my phone number. She never showed or called. All these people want to do is preach and proselytize. They do not care about children. I tell people against abortion to adopt a crack baby or two-or teach a classroom with 34 7-year old kids with a couple of crack kids mixed in. The children never stop moving!!! Never! People should help the kids who are here Now. Then put energy into increasing birth control accessability.
I have to admit, Justin, that I’m a little uncomfortable with your argument here.
Right now here in Dublin there’s a poster campaign by a pro-life organisation which aims to raise opposition to embyonic stem cell research. The posters show a smiling baby (probably 8 months to a year old) with the caption “Don’t let them use me for spare parts”.
The problem with the poster - and by extension the argument you’re presenting - is that it equates abortion / embryonic research with “killing unwanted babies”. This is a fallacy in my view… terminating an embryo isn’t killing a child (unwanted or otherwise); just as embryonic research isn’t using a child for spare parts.
You can only equate abortion with child-killing if you accept the religious belief that humanity begins at conception.
Abortion is the removal of embryonic cells from the body of a woman. There’s no child involved.
You can only equate abortion with child-killing if you accept the religious belief that humanity begins at conception.\
Not true. You could argue that life begins with consciousness, and use some (disputed) scientific research to argue that consciousness begins at, say, 12 weeks. Or you could differentiate the pool of fundamental rights, and argue that the right to life (being the *most* fundamental of rights) begins earlier than the others, say at 16 weeks. Abortion after those dates would then be “child-killing”. Well, not “child”-killing, but “something-killing”.
Of course, this is miles off topic. Justin’s merely proposing a Vic Mackey-esque utilitarian approach. While I’m a fan of The Shield, I’m not a fan of utilitarianism.
This is where an attempt at PDF-ian brevity gets me.
I’m considering whether its best for a knocked up 14 year-old to have a baby or not. If she wants to have it, feels she has the support and can cope, then fine - I’m not advocating compulsory abortions.
To be honest, I’d want to go back to first principles. The reason we have these problems is because we have a society to that is simultaneously prurient and prudish. Children are bombarded with the message of how much fun they could be having with their genitals and yet there’s this criminally negligent culture that shys away from providing them with the practical mechanics of how to stay safe or the emotional equipment to deal it all.
All I’m saying is that if it’s a choice between a teenage girl and her would-be children (and probably their would-be children) living a squalid existence (in care or out of it) or her living a better life then I think her interests trump those of the squirming mass of cells of the maybe-baby inside her. (Given the usually provisos of viability etc.)
Or, as Not Saussure says, let’s have state of the art Local Authority care and they can get on with squirting out as many of the little bastards as they like. I’m not sure Tim would be a fan of that idea but aren’t Western birth rates declining, after all?