The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent...Maternity, or additional offspring, MAY FORCE (Caps added by me to emphasize this point) upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
The Supreme Court gave voice to what the mothers in Romania and Scandinavia-and elsewhere-had long known: when a woman does not want to have a child, she usually has good reason. She may be unmarried or in a bad mairraige (I'm also going to add maybe an abusive relationship in which a child would not develop well). She may consider herself too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or unhappy, or she may think her drinking or drug use will damage the baby's health. She may believe that she is too young or hasn't yet received enough education. She may want a child badly but in a few years, not now. For any hundred reasons, she may feel that she cannot provide a home environment that is conducive to raising a healthy and productive child." (and because of that she should have the choice to abort)
-This is not crap I made up, this was taken word for word from the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, copyright 2005 by HarperCollins Books, Page 135. NOTE: The book is not about abortion but economics, yet I found this passage truly touching.
Now, the reason I post this is because how can anyone read Justice Harry Blackmun's statement and disagree, and think a woman should be forced to have a baby if she feels it necessary, especially in the event that she already has kids she can't take care of? It will only make things harder on her, her current children, and the state itself because then this woman and her family will probably have to be on welfare.
What's also interesting about people being against abortion is, sometimes they are also against social programs SUCH AS welfare as well, thinking these women are just lazy and cant take care of themselves. Well yah, how the fuck would you expect them to, when they are forced to have children that they may know they cannot provide for? And then if they have those children, how the fuck can you BITCH about the social programs designed to assist them?!
He also mentions psychological harm. It happens! Women can do damage to their children if they resent them. Hell look at that one bitch that killed her 5 kids in Texas, what was her name? Crap.. ::googles it real quick::...Andrea Yates, suffered from severe postpartum depression, yet was under so much social and religious pressure to not abort or prevent pregnancy, ended up having a nervous breakdown and killing them all. That is fucking terrible. You would prefer that to her not having a baby at all? I would rather her have avoided the whole killing thing when they are actually living persons who can be mourned and were murdered than a tiny clump of cells washing away with her natural cycle before they had sensory nerves to feel any sort of pain. This is why pro-life people are nutbags to me; they just seem one hundred percent illogical.
Read that passage above again, what else does he say? Something about bringing a child into a family that may be unable to care for it. I think many teens probably aren't ready to be parents, yet people think teens should have babies? Sarah Palin forces her daughter to have a baby even though she isn't ready? That's cruel and unusual to me... Why do people think this is the right thing to do, when it won't be good for the child or the mother? This is totally illogical and nonsensical.
That brings me to another point... An embryo. What is it, really, at the moment of conception? An embryo is not a person at this stage.
Not saying it doesn't have potential to be, but many things can happen once a sperm hits an egg. It may develop into a fetus; it may not. It may not be vital enough to develop, may miscarry, or maybe it's just conceived at an inconvenient time in the woman's cycle and is naturally aborted with her period, which happens ALL THE TIME. So why isn't that considered abortion? Because it's natural, right? Her body just produced the hormones that made that happen right? Natural. When a woman gets an abortion, what they give her is a pill that does the same thing, it's also natural. The pill prompts her body to make a hormone to squeeze the uterus and prompt her to have her period. And when this happens she has her period, plain and simple. There is no infant that falls out of her, there is no knife being stabbed up her uterus until the baby is sliced into pieces and then removed as some people think. But anyway got sidetracked there for a second...
An embryo at conception IS NOT A PERSON; it is a clump of cells that cannot survive outside the mother's womb. It is a part of HER BODY. If she wants to prick her finger and bleed, nobody looks down on her for it, even though the cells in the blood will surely die outside her body. An abortion is much the same way, believe it or not. There is no screaming baby, and there certainly is no small humanoid involved. It is nothing more than a clump of cells, it is not a fetus. Now yes, after a time a fetus does develop, but usually a woman knows before this clump develops into a fetus if she wants to be a mother or not, so there's no concern there. By her removing a clump of cells from her body, it's no different than her pricking her finger and losing some blood.
What's also interesting about people being against abortion is, sometimes they are also against social programs SUCH AS welfare as well, thinking these women are just lazy and cant take care of themselves. Well yah, how the fuck would you expect them to, when they are forced to have children that they may know they cannot provide for? And then if they have those children, how the fuck can you BITCH about the social programs designed to assist them?!
He also mentions psychological harm. It happens! Women can do damage to their children if they resent them. Hell look at that one bitch that killed her 5 kids in Texas, what was her name? Crap.. ::googles it real quick::...Andrea Yates, suffered from severe postpartum depression, yet was under so much social and religious pressure to not abort or prevent pregnancy, ended up having a nervous breakdown and killing them all. That is fucking terrible. You would prefer that to her not having a baby at all? I would rather her have avoided the whole killing thing when they are actually living persons who can be mourned and were murdered than a tiny clump of cells washing away with her natural cycle before they had sensory nerves to feel any sort of pain. This is why pro-life people are nutbags to me; they just seem one hundred percent illogical.
Read that passage above again, what else does he say? Something about bringing a child into a family that may be unable to care for it. I think many teens probably aren't ready to be parents, yet people think teens should have babies? Sarah Palin forces her daughter to have a baby even though she isn't ready? That's cruel and unusual to me... Why do people think this is the right thing to do, when it won't be good for the child or the mother? This is totally illogical and nonsensical.
That brings me to another point... An embryo. What is it, really, at the moment of conception? An embryo is not a person at this stage.
Not saying it doesn't have potential to be, but many things can happen once a sperm hits an egg. It may develop into a fetus; it may not. It may not be vital enough to develop, may miscarry, or maybe it's just conceived at an inconvenient time in the woman's cycle and is naturally aborted with her period, which happens ALL THE TIME. So why isn't that considered abortion? Because it's natural, right? Her body just produced the hormones that made that happen right? Natural. When a woman gets an abortion, what they give her is a pill that does the same thing, it's also natural. The pill prompts her body to make a hormone to squeeze the uterus and prompt her to have her period. And when this happens she has her period, plain and simple. There is no infant that falls out of her, there is no knife being stabbed up her uterus until the baby is sliced into pieces and then removed as some people think. But anyway got sidetracked there for a second...
An embryo at conception IS NOT A PERSON; it is a clump of cells that cannot survive outside the mother's womb. It is a part of HER BODY. If she wants to prick her finger and bleed, nobody looks down on her for it, even though the cells in the blood will surely die outside her body. An abortion is much the same way, believe it or not. There is no screaming baby, and there certainly is no small humanoid involved. It is nothing more than a clump of cells, it is not a fetus. Now yes, after a time a fetus does develop, but usually a woman knows before this clump develops into a fetus if she wants to be a mother or not, so there's no concern there. By her removing a clump of cells from her body, it's no different than her pricking her finger and losing some blood.
ONE IN FOUR US WOMEN HAS HAD AN ABORTION
Many women won't talk about it, but if it's one in four I'm tempted to look at it as 25% of women. If you want stats:
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html )
this link says more like 50%, which would be one out of TWO! I'm sure they don't go around broadcasting it, but people always say one of the reason they are against abortion is because afterward so many women feel regret and pain etc. etc blah blah whatever. This may be true, but if the stats are correct, and stats tend to be underreported anyway when it comes to abortion because many women don't want to admit it, but let's just say one in four women. Well, that's alot of fucking women. If they are so regretful, and having such a hard time dealing with it, don't you think we'd hear more about it in the medical community? So wouldn't it be more likely that only a small percentage of the women who actually have abortions suffer long-term mental consequences from it? That seems to be more realistic to me. If one in four women has an abortion, but we only hear rarely or infrequently about women suffering long-term consequences, that leads me to believe that maybe most women don't suffer long-term consequences. Maybe they will always feel a little sad or guilty, but in most cases I'm guessing not enough to let it ruin their lives. I think it's probably a radical few who fail to get past it that take it upon themselves to "save" other women from making the same "mistake".
Many women won't talk about it, but if it's one in four I'm tempted to look at it as 25% of women. If you want stats:
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html )
this link says more like 50%, which would be one out of TWO! I'm sure they don't go around broadcasting it, but people always say one of the reason they are against abortion is because afterward so many women feel regret and pain etc. etc blah blah whatever. This may be true, but if the stats are correct, and stats tend to be underreported anyway when it comes to abortion because many women don't want to admit it, but let's just say one in four women. Well, that's alot of fucking women. If they are so regretful, and having such a hard time dealing with it, don't you think we'd hear more about it in the medical community? So wouldn't it be more likely that only a small percentage of the women who actually have abortions suffer long-term mental consequences from it? That seems to be more realistic to me. If one in four women has an abortion, but we only hear rarely or infrequently about women suffering long-term consequences, that leads me to believe that maybe most women don't suffer long-term consequences. Maybe they will always feel a little sad or guilty, but in most cases I'm guessing not enough to let it ruin their lives. I think it's probably a radical few who fail to get past it that take it upon themselves to "save" other women from making the same "mistake".
And that brings me to my final point. I just want to state that nobody is EVER pro-abortion. No one will ever say they are in favor of babies dying. It' an insult to hear someone say that, I believe, and I think it just shows their own ignorance. It is not pro-abortion, it is PRO-CHOICE, because even when a woman has an abortion I'm sure she's not thinking it's a great experience. Like, hey man yeah let's head down to the abortion clinic and pay an exorbitant amount of money to get my period! I'm sure she isn't getting pleasure from it. I'm sure she is probably feeling sad or guilty, but she probably also knows better than you or the government if it is the right choice and if she is willing to take that upon herself to preserve her own life or future who the fuck are you to say anything about it?
Sometimes, I think pro-lifers are just that way because they were forced to have their babies, and they are bitter about it, so they think every woman should be forced to have a baby also, because after all, it's the "right thing to do," isn't it? Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a woman having a baby if she wants one and if she's in a loving relationship and if she doesn't already have a few. I'm talking about women who KNOW it wouldn't be okay.
Even if that child may be poor, unloved, unwanted, raised by crackheads, at risk for sexual abuse, statistically at risk of becoming a criminal due to lack of parental concern or lack of parental intervention because they will be out of the house working leaving th kid alone or with others to try and provide for it... Why would anyone want this for a child? I certainly don't. That's just cruel, to put a child through that, especially if a woman knows she cannot.
So again, if anyone is reading this, please review the words of Justice Harry Blackmun and tell me, how can you be against allowing a woman a choice?
"The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent...Maternity, or additional offspring, MAY FORCE (Caps added by me to emphasize this point) upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."
