Something to break up the newsday a bit here. It seems like nobody in the media is talking about abortion at the moment, so as a public service announcement, I figured I’d toss up a useful guidebook to anyone who might find themselves needing to know the facts about abortion. Or who might be in need of a good laugh, albeit a somewhat grim one.
Kem’s Guide to Having an Abortion
1. Abortion is a more civil form of population control. If you are positively commited to being a good parent, and you know you have both the drive and the ability to see it through, go for it. More power to you. If you can’t, then do everyone a favor, and don’t. Have the good sense to use birth control as a far, far better option, but don’t be afraid to abort a mistake.
2. If you think you have what it takes, but don’t have sufficient funds (i.e., your decision to raise a child will mean living off of government funds, no matter which way you slice your budget), think very, very hard about your decision. Make sure you have a support network that doesn’t involve prostitution, stripping, drug dealing, pimping, gambling, or any combination of the above. Make sure you can make it, and you won’t wind up on the street with your child. Have a plan.
3. If you’ve done the math (and trust me when I say that not everyone can), and found that it’s possible to have a child and stay out of debt, and are determined to make it, then go to it. Otherwise, abort the baby. If you aren’t able to do the math and set goals to get yourself to where you want to be– honestly, what kind of a parent/role model will you be?
4. Adoption is always an option; but the number of children who need good homes so far exceeds the number of families who are willing and able to provide for them as to make the option of having a child just so your newborn baby can be adopted… cruel. Realize that your cute healthy white baby will always win over the starving Malaysian three-year-old.
5. Consider the family that may be formed if you decide to keep the baby, and make damned sure you won’t be condemning yourself and your baby to a day-to-day existence that belongs on an episode of Jerry Springer. Think very hard about whether or not you would like to look at yourself in the mirror 10 years down the road if your life belonged on Jerry Springer.
And a final comment, in case my opinion on this isn’t absolutely crystal clear: it’s absolutely horrifying to me that a state will tell a young woman who could not possibly afford to have a child that she must pay something well beyond her means to end a pregnancy– but they’ll pay the shot and put her on wellfare if she has the kid. Just yuck. That’s a horrifying policy from an economic standpoint.
[...] don’t fit the model that the GOP traditionally targets when they build their ads. I’m pro-abortion, generally against religion (or at the very least, against the concept of faith in others to [...]
Pingback by Why McCain? « Justkem’s Weblog — March 26, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry Kem, gotta disagree with you on this one.
birthcontrol does not equate to abortion. It is more than only analysis of one’s ability to be a good parent, or having sufficient funds to see it through. It is all about taking personal responsibility for one’s actions. Being a good parent may very well translate to a successful childhood for the offspring, but that pales when one considers that the “choice” is death. Just because I may have been born into a poor family, or to crappy parents does NOT mean I should be given the death penalty. From the offspring’s point of view the woman’s choice is mortal.
Your blog only takes the view of the woman–not the other people involved.
Birth control is a shortcut to living a life of risk-free fun. Abstenence (sp?) is the only 100% way to ensure a baby is not produced whilst ‘having fun’ was the object. Take sex out of the picture and abortions go to zero. The ‘choice’ should be: ADOPTION.
Cheers!
Robert
Comment by Robert — March 27, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Robert,
Yes, I covered that. See point #4. There are plenty of human beings who need love and support, food and shelter. Having a baby just to give it away is quite literally taking food from the mouths of others in need of charity.
Your argument is the classic “killing Beethoven” one that pro-lifer’s always come up with. The difference between your philosophy and my philosophy is that I don’t value the potential life that could result as highly as I value the life that already exists on the planet and is in need of help.
The “other people involved” are not as heavily invested in the project as the mother. Her body, her choice. I agree that it’s a pretty cruddy thing to do to a guy, killing his unborn child and all… but I have to say that if you’re going to go to bed with someone, you should know them well enough to know how they feel about procreation and taking on parental responsibilities. If the woman’s views don’t mesh well with your own, and you’re unable to cope with the fact that your lack of a womb means you don’t get the final decision, then you should find someone who is more likely to let you guilt them into having a baby against her better judgment.
Just don’t be surprised when I bitch a little about paying for his free lunch.
Comment by justkem — March 31, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
NO, No. You did not address my points at all. Adoption was the last thing I raised. Most of my discussion was about the rights of the unborn. Which, based on Roe v Wade, are few rights, indeed. However, these are moral questions that are at issue. Obviously the law of the land is proabortion. However, to decided whether it is moral brings in the idea of considering the unborn child. Does the unborn child have a ’say’ in the decision to be put-to-death? I think it ought to. Birth control is so easy nowadays. It is a wonder that anybody has an unplanned pregnancy. But, for the under-educated, who eith don’t know, don’t care, or have ulterior motives, they will be perpetually getting pregnant. They will be using the abortion system. They will lose out, in a Darwinian sense. And that is fine with me. But to allow such a decision to be made with such cavalier, is sad. We humans ought to be better than that.
The pro-abortionist always juxtapose the unborn’ death with the pitiful life they would have to endure, being born into poverty, for instance. Death? That is better than poverty? Is there no spark of imagination that may make their pitiful life have some meaning? Is there no higher principle, beyond modern comforts, that make life worth living? Have we, as a society only focused on our personal cushy existance, so much so,that we conclude that any other, poor, hapless, hand-to-mouth, existance is worse than Death?
The pro-death folks don’t like to use terms such as death, killing, murder, fetalicide. Those terms are a stark reminder that our humanity is was is being killed, figuritively, but the baby is killed, literally.
Don’t slough off the “Beethoven” argument too lightly. Many a brilliant person came from quite meager beginings. Can not we humans excercise self-control, restraint, hope, perseverance? Are these concepts good only for the history books?
Comment by Robert — April 11, 2008 @ 10:22 am