Abortion is so vilified because it is the taking of a human life nothing to do with religion

I just want to say welcome to ehealth! Hope you stick around!

Thank you, sandy, for the kind welcome. Thanks to you too, diamond, for stating a simple yet perfectly logical reason to oppose abortion.

Abortion has been so villified in the past because, like birth control, it further separated sex from reproduction. For some people (and for a variety of reasons), this is a very negative evolution of our humanity and of our understanding of ourselves and of our bodies because it alters and changes what some believe to be a "natural" function.

And, when sex was separated from reproduction, women became more free to experience and express their sexuality in ways that gave them pleasure. Many more people see this as a negative development either because it led women to be more like men in their relationships or because it led women to be more free in other areas of their lives. If you can control your fertility and absolutely make it align with your personal will, you can do anything else you choose to do. This means that more women have decided to put off childbearing to go to college, develop their own satisfying careers, and to even forgo marriage. To many people (obviously not me) this was a very negative development that led to the further changing of our basic family structure and to women's rights and responsibilities in general.

Those are all nonreligious arguments that I have heard but I have tried to express them in a more rational way than they were expressed to me because the argument that abortion and birth control should be illegal so that women go back to their antiquated gender roles whether they want to or not does not hold any weight or validity with me. But I have had enough sociology to understand why people fear the vast changes that have occured and may even try to fight against them.

Another anti-abortion argument i've heard is of course that abortion can be detrimental to women. Pas aside, anti-choice feminists say that women should not have to have abortions-if a woman becomes pregnant and desires the child-society is obligated to help her fullfill her completely normal, biologically expected role as a mother. Women should not have to have abortions because of economics, education, or other "social" reasons. They think that society pressures women into abortions for these reasons, and that is a continuation of putting women in a second class position to men.

I can understand this opinion and I share it. However, I do not think that legislating against abortion is going to solve societies' problems. I think that when you legislate against it without exception you end up with issues such as jenn has mentioned previously.

Yet another argument against abortion is that men do not have "equal" rights regarding parenting. I think this is a bogus argument against legal abortion. I think men should have the same choice as a woman-to be a parent or not to be a parent? But this is an entirely different issue than abortion, and it is not a valid reason to legislate against abortion.

Wow! I didn't expect that someone would actually blow my mind, but here it's done twice in a row. Jenn and birch managed to explain the pro-life philosophy in ways I can understand, if not relate to. I think it's uber-ironic that both such eloquent explanations come from (what appear to be) pro-choice supporters.

Somehow, though, I doubt that devout pro-life enthusiasts will agree to this psychoanalysis of their beliefs. I would very much like to hear from a pro-lifer who has more to say on the subject than, "killing babies is bad, mmmkay."

I would like to add an opinion.

There are many childfree women, like myself, who are financially well off and married, but never want babies at all. Pl people often cannot fathom that a woman and man may not wish to have children, even if they technically could afford them.

All the societal support, millions, and big house offers, would not make me want to have a baby.

to add onto carifairy

then there are woman like me who were pressured into giving birth at a young age because I was married and had money. I hate how society depicts our life, if we dont follow the 'norm' as they say well then there must be something wrong with us. I almost wish that I wasnt naive and would have waited for children.

I am pro-woman I believe that a woman should have rights and be allowed to make choices whether they be good or bad. How does society evolve if we cant learn from our mistakes?

Diamondz..

I am sorry to hear that, and I agree with you =)

i believe that there can be both pressure to abort and pressure to have babies.

its all good but thats why im pro-choice I learned from my mistakes and able to live and luv my lil munchkins although its hard!

i have had the occasion to hear quite a vitriolic "prolife" individual finally be whittled down by a patient prochoice person who kept questioning their stance on a few things. At first, the "prolife" person was loud and obnoxious and clung desperately to the over-emotional, melodramatic party line. Finally, after weeks of this ongoing discussion, the "prolife" person admitted that making abortions illegal would neither stop them from occuring or do anything to prevent unintended pregnancies from taking place. Further, the "prolife" person actually admitted that making abortion illegal would vastly restrict women's rights.

Once you get through the emotion, you get a very real sense of what the movement is based upon. Those at the top of the movement know full well what they are advocating. Those supporting from the ground have often not taken enough time to truly examine the issue and thus, they are being used as pawns for things that they probably would never have allowed themselves to be used for if they had truly given thought to the issue and been properly educated (from unbiased sources) on the issues.

without bringing up religious views why killing a newborn baby is vilified?

a fetus and a newborn baby are two different things, that's why.

and the reason they are two different things is because one is inside the womb and the other don't. Both look and act exactly the same. So you see damiana that is why abortion is vilified.

Nightangel-

well, no, they do not both act the same.

A 6 weeks gestation fetus will not act the same as a 36 weeks fetus, because the 36 week fetus has thalamus activity and sleep and wake cycles. The fetus will have sleep and wake cycles starting at about 26 weeks,and this is also the period of time in whcih the thalamic connections are fully developed and functioning. 6 week fetuses do not have thalamic activity, this is a known fact.

As far as 26-28 week fetuses, they are no different than most full term gestation new borns, except that they are smaller and may have less developed lungs.

no, they do not. Do you need a picture of a 1 day old zygote? How about an embryo? Even early fetuses have paddles for feet and hands, tails, and large nostrils. In many stages of development, a human, fish, and chimpanzee fetus are indistinguishable from each other; and none of them look anything at all like their baby counterparts.

They also do not act the same. A baby cries. A fetus cannot. Its lungs are not connected, literally it is impossible for it to cry. The lungs become connected correctly and all mucus in them is absorbed into to the baby's body within 60 seconds of birth. The entire cardiovascular system rewires itself in this time period.

So you see damiana, that is why abortion is not villified.

omg the fetus can't cry but the newborn baby does! What a difference!! Yeah let's kill the fetus cause he can't cry!

Actually a fetous can cry I have a scan video from my daughter at 24 weeks and on it you can clearly see that she is crying there have also been cases of fetouses being recorded crying on fetal heart monitors

you ignored everything else I said. Nice talent.