Replies

Thought-provoking article.

I view abortion as an abominable practice and sinful to the fullest extent. But these are not my primary arguments against it. When arguing from this standpoint, it becomes a moral issue and our system of law is not based on the Word of God.

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time. My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time.

I agree. There is probably some extremely rare circumstance which might justify an abortion, but this is so rare as to make the "life of the mother" arguments meaningless.

My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve. Your male-less description is a BIG part of the problem with abortion. Also, not only women, but many men use abortion as a back up birth control measure in lieu of taking precautions themselves. Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite. Everyone involved in conception that ends in abortion is complicit in that abortion.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

This is untrue. There are no 100% reliable contraceptives. The best we have are 1)Sterilization 2)Redundant contraceptive measures. Even with those most reliable ones it is STILL possible to co-concieve. Anyone, man or woman, who wants 0% risk has only one choice, abstain from sex. Otherwise, it is a calculated risk on the part of BOTH parties. The default consequence of sex is conception. Therefore BOTH people have an obligation, not just the woman, to prevent conception. If they co-conceive and later agree to abort, then they were BOTH using abortion as their back-up birth control plan.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

Oh it is VERY possible. I know of two cases personally.: 1. I know a couple who co-conceived after her husband had a vasectomy. (Yes it was his, they checked). They had the baby and the vasectomy doctor paid for the maternity and labor cost. :-)

2. I know a couple who co-conceived when the wife was 55 and the husband was 62. She had gone through (they thought) menopause. They also had the baby, the husband who was due to retire that year stayed on the job.

These are just the ones I know of personally. Lots of people conceive while on the Pill. The Pill is not as effective as everyone thinks. It can be compromised by common illnesses, stress, or other medications. Sometimes the doctor simply does not prescribe the right mix of hormones. There have been known factory errors too. Lots of problems.

Every method has problems and none is 100% reliable. The most reliable method is redundancy, Pill + condom for example.