Anonymous asked: The other day my friends and I were talking about pro-choice vs. pro-life. I was talking about my reasons for being pro-choice (woman's body and choice, overpopulation, safe, fetus not a human, etc.) One of my friends said that she was going to be aborted and that's why she's pro-life. Another friend said she's pro-life because the mother can just put the baby up for adoption anyway if she doesn't want to have it. Are these valid counerpoints?
Well, we’ve posted stories of people who are pro-choice and their mothers wanted the option of abortion but for whatever reason, they were unable to obtain one. So being pro-life for that reason doesn’t mean someone who could’ve been aborted can’t be pro-choice either.
Adoption is not an option for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. For one, giving up a baby for adoption is much more psychologically traumatizing than an abortion. Adoption is not an alternative to being pregnant, abortion is. Some women cannot carry a baby to term so adoption is not an option for them. Should they still be forced to birth a baby even though it will mean their lives are put at severe risk? Adoption doesn’t cover the cost of prenatal exams, the cost of giving birth (some adoptive parents are willing to pay for it, but not all birth mothers are given that option, what are they supposed to do?), or the cost of post-partum check-ups that a woman will need to have regardless of whether she keeps the baby or gives it up.
Should rape victims be forced to be assaulted at prenatal visits because they conceived during their rape? By that I mean they have to have invasive exams and tests that can be extremely traumatizing for someone who has been raped and perceived as assault.
These are all counterpoints to your friends’ arguments and they have facts behind them.
Love,
Rabble
http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/876776264/the-other-day-my-friends-and-i-were-talking-about
No comments:
Post a Comment