July 9, 1979, Time Magazine published an article, "The Fanatical Abortion Fight." At that time, I responded to this article and now submit it again 24 years later
Save us! Save us! cry children in crowded slums and foreign countries. Why were they born/created?
To suffer, starve, strive through life? For what? On what premise is a family initiated? Father?? Mother, love, honor and creativity balanced to provide a home, life, love and happiness to hopefully contribute to the world's future foundation
In general, slipshod morals are prevalent in all ages, races and creeds. Trapped in this web, women must strive not only to protect their own self-existence but that of their children Mothers create the flesh and blood of their children. They nurture, love, respect; educate; teach self preservation, independence; instill drive and implant character wholeheartedly Motherhood is a critical step in a woman's life.
Disregard the nine months and delivery, etc. Consider this a supreme vow for 18-25 years or her entire life dedicated to being there, doing for, caring for, hoping for, praying for the child's successful existence in all aspects of health, security and happiness.
No one asks to be born into this world to my knowledge. Believe it or not, some women are depressed, discontented and soul searching when they find out they are expecting another child. It becomes a calculated risk of additional responsibilities. Can she cope?
Limitations should be decided in each family. If not, this impending birth could be an inclusive disaster. If man won't consider a vasectomy, a woman is encouraged and/or forced to react toward a goal of self-prevention/protection. Birth control is the first and an utmost and absolute must.
However, what happens when BC fails or is ignored? Human beings make mistakes! Don't some make several? Don't pencils have erasers? Ink -- eradicators? Why then must a woman be criticized when abortion is her only salvation? What alternatives are available after the fact? When she cries SAVE ME! SAVE THIS INNOCENT BABY FROM INEVITABLE-INCRIMINATING DESTRUCTION -- who hears her? Where does she go? Who can/will help?
The suppressed or ignorant can't afford BC methods, or can they? Can they even afford an abortion or can they receive additional ADC to accommodate the next group of unscheduled, unwanted, accidental arrivals? How much taxpayers' money is used for this reality? Who suffers for what?
Abortion is painful to a woman physically, mentally and I would like to believe morally. Pro-Lifers should utilize time, energy, ideas and potential and expend it toward the source of the problem in lieu of administering vexation toward prevention of a cure. Women in this predicament are condemned for an accidental misfortune.
Men, the obvious causal factors are abolished from guilt and HYDE from the real issue because they can't be self-exposed (pregnant).
If truly unwanted, what is the impending womb to tomb destiny of the innocent child. Who is to blame for "JUST ANOTHER STATE-DEPENDENT INDIGENT?"
Pro-Lifers march strategically against abortion. They kill doctors! Abortion is too definite -- it truly solves all facets of the problem at hand for all involved, therefore, it is too logical. Abortion may just shock one physically, mentally and morally into reality long enough to realize the importance of birth control as well as live birth, death and infinity.
Disposition prior to painful and unwanted existence is the answer! Abusing established human life is disgusting, immoral and rational. Twenty-four years ago these were my thoughts on the subject.
To date, I have seen the results of unwanted children. Think! How many mothers in the recent past have drowned, killed, abused their children. How many women have lost their rational capacity because the burden has pushed them over the edge.
Some say adoption is the answer! Do you watch TV? Do you see the adopted children hunting, searching, seeking their biological parents? etc. etc. I agree that the decision for abortion should be made ASAP.
The decision must be the woman's choice because the responsibility and burden are hers alone to bare. Potential abuse, neglect, starvation and misery await the unwanted newborn babies.
Would you want to be a living, feeling, suffering, unwanted, neglected child born to a drug addict, or a family that could not feed you or clothe you?
Put yourself in the fetus position -- no nerves, no mind, no feeling in the abortion zone and time.
Now, put yourself in the position of an alive unwanted, cold, starving, homeless, loveless child and tell me abuse of a living being is acceptable and elimination of unknown pain is not the answer. The child is the one who will suffer the most!
Why not eliminate the pain completely by eliminating the possibility of a life of hell, neglect and potentially a prisoner.
Love is a necessity and being wanted is mandatory. To take on a responsibilty and burden is the choice of the person who will pay the dues.
Not pro-lifers.
Not people who try to force their opinion on others.
Not human beings who judge others capabilities, limitations, mental and/or physical tolerance. Who are you to judge?
Let people make their choices and let them reap the consequences - what does it cost you?
Save your two cents!!!
Whatever you choose to do - be grateful you had the opportunity to make that choice!
As for your comments about neglect, abuse, starvation... Abuse of any kind is unacceptable and intolerable; all the more reason to support adoption.
And, yes, I'm Pro-Choice. There are circumstances/reasons when adoption may not be the best alternative for some - especially, and particularly, when there is a health concern or if a sexual assault resulted in pregnancy. Still, adoption is a solid, viable answer.
Tami
And Mark, Abortion is not murder. Murder is an act inflicted on an actual human being, not a potential human being. Murder only applies to such cases as when Pro-Lifers bomb abortions clinics.
And I advise you to stop quoting works of fiction.
Bush would be making a terrible mistake by taking away our freedom to choose. It angers me that a man is threatening to take away a right for women, that women would only understand. Men should have no opinion on the issue, they're not the one having to carry a fetus for 9 months.
Anyways, great job Ms. Dunn :) I really love the article - I'll definitly be linking to it on my website.
Bravo for you, Friend Karen! You expressed yourself so well about the
abortion problem! If this stupid Congress gets rid of Roe Vs. Wade, the
old rusty hangers will be utilized again. These do-gooders who feel fit
to slaughter doctors brave enough to dispose of unwanted fetuses are
themselves murderers. They ought to be forced to take into their own
homes EVERY SINGLE unwanted, dope-filled , AIDS -infected baby to raise
for eighteen years, if their concern is so great!
I could not fill in the form to give my opinion because Juno cut me off
the Internet. They allow me just a minute or two because I am not a
paying person. But you wrote a wonderful appraisal of the situation. I
only wish that today's kids were more moral and refrained from sexual
activity. I truly believe in abstinence until marriage. I did it!
There is no greater abuse than bringing a child into a dysfunctional home.
I, myself go even further, in that I think that the social contract demands that people on public assistance (PA), those supported at taxpayer expense because they cannot, at present take care of their own needs, should be required to use Norplant during their entire time on PA.
If a person cannot even take care of their own basic needs, they are self-evidently unfit to bring a child into this world.
Fine writing.
This is truly one of your best writes. It's a definite 10.
LB