My objection to some of the points raised by the pro-choice posters:
DISCLAIMER:
I take nothing here personally. I do not hate you, I am not mad at you, but I simply disagree with your view.
1)
Rape: After having been raped, the victim has already been subject to enough trauma, so she should not be forced to bear a child which will always remind her of the heinous crime committed against her.
~Objections: The child is not responsible for how he or she was created. Having not been the baby's fault that it was the result of a violent crime by a sick, perverted man, it has the right to be born. If the woman does not wish to keep the child, she certainly may give it up for adoption. Of course, as the apt pro-choicer would point out, the woman would have to go through labor and the gestation period, perhaps to the chagrin of her friends and family. This, however, is a yolk that the woman has a responsibility to fulfill. What regard to human life do we have if we cannot allow a child to live because he or she was the result of a horrid crime? If we simply end the crime with more violence, it shows that we, as a society, cannot overcome violence. Violence should lead to peace, not to more violence and hate.
2)
"Special" Births: Because a child will be born with a mental illness or a physical deformity, it is in some way charitable to kill it so that it will not have to suffer.
~Objections: Again, this undermines the absolute dignity of each human person by virtue of his or her humanity. If we allow parents to kill their unborn babies so that they "will not suffer," should we not also be able to kill the mentally or physically handicapped so as to rescue them as well from their skum-sucking, bottom-feeding position in society? By killing those who may be at risk of a mental or physical disability before birth, we are becoming Hitler; we are trying to make a master race. Eugenics, anyone?
~Furthermore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill the handicapped before birth because we assume that their lives will be bad simply because they will be
different, a word we don't like to use much in our society. We'd rather have everyone be
the same. Of all the mentally or physically disabled people I have ever met, I have never met a single one who was unhappy or ungrateful for what he or she has. They do not focus on the negative, but rather on the positive. They, being human, can live a life filled with joy, peace, and love.
~Last time I checked, the mortality rate for human beings was 100%. If people will die, why should be torture them and let them live in this wicked, war-torn world? Wouldn't it just be easier and more loving if we killed them and saves them from the pain and toil that they will surely face at some point in their lives?
3)
Pro-choice. I think it was either my mom or dad who said that (I can't remember if this something they heard elsewhere or thought up) if men had babies, abortion would be totally legal.
~Objection: I'm not quite sure what this means, because abortion is already totally legal.
4)
Men: I'm a man, so I can't have an opinion.
Objection: I'm white, so I can't have an opinion on minority rights. I'm a natural citizen of the USA, so I can't have an opinion on immigration. Human solidarity is key in solving this issue. Simply because I am not able to do something is not reason enough for me not to make my opinion matter. Men are just as responsible as women for creating babies, so they should have just as much say in deciding whether or not a child should live. It is absurd to take a "bye" on this issue, which affects men and women, both as parents and as children.
5)
Dangerous Pregnancy: If a woman is in danger of death while in the gestation period, the fetus should be aborted.
Objection: We should, of course, do our best to save both lives. This is the only circumstance in which abortion may be a viable option, however, the situation must mandate that the woman will die if she does not abort the fetus.
6)
I think that if people are educated to better plan their sexual relationship(s) abortion wouldn't be such a big issue. It amazes me at how little most teenagers know about sex, STDs, pregnancy, abortion, etc. I believe that this education should start at home, but many parents are not equipped to have such discussions with their children or are apathetic because they thing the X will never happen to their child so X shouldn't be taught to them. I therefor believe that sex education in public schools is very important.
Common Ground: Yes, you are correct, Luigison. The home has the primary responsibility when educating children about sexuality. I also agree that sex-ed in schools is of paramount importance. This is not a cure-all, however. Teenagers will often rebel against what they hear in school, or disregard it altogether and make errors in judgment while they are filled with hormones. In a back-seat situation, the first thing on a teenage guy's mind is not Mr. Thomas's Sex-Ed class.
EDIT 1: Fixed some code errors (italics and bolds).