Name:   copperline - Subject:   ANOTHER sincere and serious question Date:   4/3/2016 2:07:43 PM

I have always been strongly pro-choice, and I come to that position through my belief in a person’s right of self-determination and freedom to make the best choices suited to their particular situation in life.   I have sat with many women who were either considering abortions or had already had one and it is my opinion that none of them made the decision lightly… nor used it as an alternative birth control method.   When they were considering this very weighty and powerful choice, they felt they were facing nothing less than a crisis that threatened the outcome of their lives…

No one should be forced to have a child they do not want or are unable to care for.  

Is there a moral dimension to this decision?   Absolutely, yes.   Ask any woman who has ever had to terminate a pregnancy and she will tell you about the doubts, the guilt, the uncertainties she experienced.      But should this moral quandary be solved by the government or left to the individuals it affects?   You know my answer to that one.   This anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in religion, not common law… and I don’t think we should codify religious beliefs like this into law so they can be applied across the board.

I believe that the only way for an anti-abortion person to be consistent is to also be in support of expanded welfare benefits for single mothers and their children.   In my opinion, if you are going to force people to have children they can’t care for,  then society will need to take care of an ever increasing number of abandoned and neglected children.    But I find that the typical opponent also believes we should cut back on welfare programs, too… generally following some vague notion that poverty will somehow make people quit having babies they can’t afford.  

It seems to me that the anti-abortion position has always been essentially punative toward women.  Punishment has been in the form of shame & condemnation.