Abortion: Pro Life or Pro Choice?
Posted by: riawibisono on: March 25, 2007
Note : I wrote this essay for my assignment in English 2 class. I think it would be great sharing some of my best assignments here in my blog. Happy reading! =)
A worried mother has just known that it would be dangerous to give birth to her baby. Besides, the doctor told her that the baby would be a disabled (deaf). If you were that woman, what would you do? In the second case, there was an unmarried woman who got pregnant. In her culture, pregnancy before marriage was a big offense and it could bring the woman to capital punishment. If you were that unmarried woman, would you still continue your pregnancy? If you choose to abort the first baby, you would kill Ludwig Van Beethoven, a well-known musician. And if you abort the second, you would make a very big mistake, killing Jesus Christ the human savior. Some people always think that abortion is the mother’s right and – in special cases – it is a good solution for saving the mother’s life and the baby from lack of love or disability, without consider that the baby has a right to be alive, giving birth has less risk than abortion, there are so many orphanages to take care of that unwanted babies, and the baby may become a great people someday.
Many pro-choice supporters legalize abortion with the reason of woman’s right to use her reproductive organs. Even John Kerry, one of the current US president’s candidates, agreed to this idea. His personal opinion became a controversy because he is a Roman Catholic, which forbids abortion in all way. Well, the pro-choice supporters (and also Kerry) forget that babies also have human right to be alive. It is unfair to neglect one’s right while you try to defend another person’s right, isn’t it?
But how if a mother needs to do abortion in order to save her own life? In this case, it will be dangerous for her continuing her pregnancy and bear her baby. Is abortion the only solution of this problem? Think twice! Abortion itself has bad effects, physically and mentally. It may cause cancer and sterility to the mother, and disability to the survive baby. It brings guilty feeling, trauma, or even mental disorder. Keep giving birth is safer as today medical technology has more solutions to solve the problem of high-risk pregnancy. Besides, it may not bring mother to death. Emilia, the mother of Karel Wojtyla (better known as Pope John Paul II, the spiritual leader of billions Roman Catholics in the world) was one of the survive mother from high-risk pregnancy. So, even in the high-risk pregnancy case, giving birth is better than abortion.
People also argue that abortion is needed when the pregnancy is unwanted. Maybe the mother already has many children, she is unmarried, or she is a victim of rape. If she must give birth, she cannot give the born baby enough love and care. So, should she abort her baby? The answer is absolutely no! There are still so many orphanages or sterile couples who want to take care of the baby. If you don’t want the baby, you can give it to them rather than kill.
When the doctor informs that the baby would be a disabled, many parents think to stop the pregnancy. It will spend much money and care to raise a disable kid. The kid will really depend on them for a lifetime. The kid won’t have a bright future. They also worry about what people say. But they don’t think that if they want to struggle, they can make a disable child becoming a great people. Beethoven was a good example. It is God that determines one’s destiny, including the disabled.
From the explanations before, it is clear that abortion has more disadvantages than benefits. It is true that abortion is a matter of choice, but you must choose the best one anyway. And the most important point is you have to believe that when God gives you a baby, He also makes you able to raise the kid. Don’t let your fear get bigger than your belief. Remember, if the women above chose abortion, there would not be Beethoven, John Paul II, and Jesus Christ in the world!
6 Responses to "Abortion: Pro Life or Pro Choice?"
[...] A worried mother has just known that it would be dangerous to give birth to her baby. Besides, the doctor told her that the baby would be a disabled (deaf). If you were that woman, what would you do? If you choose to abort this baby, you would kill Ludwig Van Beethoven, a well-known musician. (via) [...]
March 28, 2008 at 12:36 pm
hello everybody, it’s me agin . . .
WELL THIS TIME, i will not share my experience like what i did in the last topic which is about “Menjadi Gay-Sebuah Pilihan Hidup” as i do not have that experience as i am not a woman. ( i love making love with a male though . . .L.O.L)
Thus i just want to interupt your opinion. STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MOTHER. START TALKING ABOUT THE UNFORTUNATELY BABY. Have u ever imagine yourself being that baby??? Is there anyone being going to be happy to be born without neither love or expecting from his mother???
All of u must agree with me that we like loving and being loved esp. by our mother. THAT IS WHY we usually call our mother beloved mother. What will happen to u if u do not haave somebody to love and to be loved?? MOREOVER nobody can replace our mother love even though that person is our father.
SO THAT if there is a woman who does not want to have have her baby lived, which baby wants to live??
EVERYBODY, INCLUDING YOURSELF must expect to be born in a perfect family. And a family without real parents is not a perfect family, is it ??
June 10, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Come on sheeple, do some research. The Beethoven story is fiction. Then again, it isn’t like you care about facts.
June 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm
If only Jesus Christ had been aborted, this debate would have been over already
May 31, 2009 at 6:07 pm
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization on sexual and reproductive health issues, state and federal tax dollars paid $89 million for 177,404 abortions in 2006.
“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”
She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”
Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.
A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.
Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.
An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.
Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.
With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It’s my opinion that a woman’s right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for,” Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. “Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
(Did he suggest cap and trade?)
Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.
If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.
According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?
Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.
The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.
If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”
A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”
May 1, 2007 at 1:28 am
I agree with what you have said (not sure about in cases of rape however… undecided on that), but I don’t think Beethoven was born deaf, I think he developed it later in life?