There's been a post shared on Facebook in the weeks since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade that starts out by saying: "I'm not pro-murdering babies." However, it then gives various scenarios where abortion should be justified. The implication is that if someone is pro-life, they only care about the babies themselves, not the women who face pregnancies under difficult circumstances. The truth is, we do care about the women in these situations, perhaps even more so than those that are pro-choice. We are willing to help them see that the answer to a crisis pregnancy is assisting them through the crisis, not getting rid of the pregnancy. That's why in my state we are voting on an amendment called Value Them Both because we do value them both and want to make sure that both the woman and child are well cared for throughout the pregnancy and beyond.
Here are the arguments in the oft-shared post, and how each hypothetical woman can be cared for without having an abortion.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into the world had developed without life-sustaining organs.
Yes, this scenario is a tragic one. No one wants to be told that the baby they are carrying will not survive outside the womb. However, in a situation like this, the baby will die on its own and does not need to be killed. I can understand that carrying such a pregnancy to term would be hard for the mother, but abortion is not going to change that. Also, those scans are not infallible. A French study studied 526 babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities, and found an 8.8% false-positive rate and a 9.2% misdiagnosis rate. That means that just in that sample size, 88 children who did not have whatever they were diagnosed as having. Of those, 22 innocent lives were snuffed out because of a mistake.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
This seems to be one of the pro-choice advocates' favorite talking points. While getting raped is a traumatic experience, getting an abortion does not erase the trauma of the rape. The baby that was conceived as a result is not the one at fault, yet this argument says that he or she needs to die because of what the father did. I've said it before and I'll say it again: forced castration of the rapist is a much better response to the situation than killing the baby.
In addition, if the woman doesn't want to raise the child of her rapist, she can put the baby up for adoption. Many people can't have kids of their own but still have a lot of love to give. No matter how a child is conceived, they deserve a chance to have a life and to be loved.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I agree that this would be a nightmare scenario, but it can be solved without an abortion. As this video states, an emergency C-section can be performed to deliver the baby, and then doctors can begin to treat the hemorrhaging. Depending on how far along the woman is, the baby may or may not survive outside the womb, but the primary purpose of the procedure is saving the mother not killing the child, so it is not classified as an abortion.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body is not mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
For the most part, I reiterate what I said in responding to the pro-Susan argument. However, there is the added consideration of her age. While this does make the pregnancy riskier, it does not mean that abortion should be an option. The girl's parents need to do everything in their power to make sure she is cared for throughout the pregnancy, both physically and mentally. Then, after the baby is born, they can put him or her up for adoption. They could also support their daughter in raising the child, as this family did.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
Melissa is struggling, no doubt about that. However, that's not the baby's fault. If she truly can't care for another child, she can put the baby up for adoption. She can also seek help from an organization such as Human Coalition which will help her find the resources she needs to allow her to care for her child herself. Abortion is not a solution to poverty. If she chose instead to kill one of the children she already had, she would be charged with murder. How is aborting her unborn child any different?
I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
Just like Melissa, she can put the baby up for adoption or seek the help of a pregnancy resource center.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
Why is it "required" that she have it? Not only can selective reduction be quite risky, but it is also possible to have a healthy pregnancy with six babies as long as the mother is well cared for. Also, how would they decide which babies get the ax? This scenario has a woman attempting to play God, and I'm sure God can handle this situation much better than abortionists.
I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
The spouse is the monster, not the child, and aborting the child will not take away the trauma of the abuse. There are places that will care for Jessica and her child as well as keep them safe. The baby growing in her womb is a blessing that came out of her horrible situation.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
The baby has already died in this scenario, so it's no longer an abortion, even if it's coded as such. Medical removal of a miscarried baby has never been what we were fighting against.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
She could give the baby up for adoption and still be just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out that she's 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
Neither one of them would survive if the pregnancy were to continue, so it must be terminated. However, as stated in the video mentioned above, termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not classified as an abortion, so this scenario is not a reason for abortion to be readily available.
(To read more about my thoughts on abortion, see my other posts Choose Life, Knit Together, and Unplanned.)
Comments
Post a Comment