But, in fact, the folks on both sides of this question are taking worthy and moral positions. Who can fault someone who wishes to prevent the termination of a teen pregnancy in order to save the life of the innocent unborn child? If you care to peruse "Life, Death, and Large Numbers" found at www.nutri.com/death you'll realize just how precious life is, knowing the infinitesimal chance each one of us had of surviving the great number of gauntlets we had to run in order to be born. Yes, life is precious, it's a miracle, and no matter how far along a fetus has developed, every aborted fetus has indeed been murdered. The pro-life stance will not accept an abortion, a murder, merely on the basis of poverty or inconvenience. (It is assumed the fetus and mother are known to be normal and healthy.)
On the other hand, who can fault anyone who defends the soon-to-be mother's right to make a life-and-death choice by her own free will. Surely she understands the ramifications of her decision. She will clearly have weighed all the reasons for not murdering her baby, and the decision process must, and will, tear at her heart. By whatever way she arrives at her final decision to kill the fetus, should anyone have the right to force her to bear an unwanted child? If a pro-life government had its way, then all sorts of rules and regulations and exceptions and penalties would be created to force the girl not to have an abortion. The large bureaucracy created to enforce these regulations may be agreeable to many pro-lifers, but remember, if the government, today, had the power to prevent a girl from having an abortion, how long will it be before a future government will have the power, for whatever reasons, to force a girl to have an abortion? In fact, during the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century, well over 65,000 legal sterilizations (representing only what surgeons chose to report), here in the United States, were forced upon unwilling persons, mostly retarded and criminal, to prevent the proliferation of similar defectives so as to protect our gene pool and to prevent a huge drain on our financial and social resources in the future. Not to be outdone, between 200,000 and 350,000 defectives were sterilized in Germany between 1933 and 1945.
The collection of bureaucrats, that we call a government, clearly shouldn't be given the right to tamper with very difficult and personal decisions that'll be made after much reflection and with much heartache. Any government policy will have been arrived at politically and thus irrationally, derived from the superficial opinions (or dogmas) of religious or uneducated or propagandized groups or minorities whose votes are coveted by unconscionable bureaucrats who will risk the future of our country so they can collect some votes today. But, you ask, what about the millions of fetuses lost to freedom of choice? The answer is another question: What about the millions of young, educated, patriotic Americans (and their descendants), in the primes of their lives, who have been murdered and maimed fighting for our freedom to choose? Should their sacrifices have been in vain? These lost Americans were loved and wanted, but the lost fetuses were unwanted. Consider the lost fetuses as soldiers in the war against government bureaucrats who want to intrude into your private life and dictate your most personal decisions.
Finally, we should note that most Pro-Life advocates want to limit, or even decrease, world population. This obvious inconsistency poses a paradox that's difficult to reconcile with logic and common sense. Pro-Lifers discourage the conception of wanted children while compelling the births of unwanted ones. Pro-Choicers kill unwanted babies after conception, and Pro-Lifers kill wanted babies before conception.
And there you have it. I'm a Pro-Choice advocate because: