Abortion Info

[kib]

I am planning to write an editorial in response to an article in the newspaper published at my university.

The title of the article is “Abortion not a Tragedy: Good Decision in Tough Times” by Bonnie Erbe. Here is a quote: “…can we agree that this couple’s decision not to bring forth a child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It’s actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.” I would link the article, but I can’t find it online.

At the moment, I am planning to cite the financial implications of treatment for breast, cervical, ovarian, and liver cancer; as well as other detrimental medical effects of abortion. The length is limited to 350 words, but I am going to try to fit as much as possible about the moral implications as well. I feel that references from an impartial source would be most effective because of the non-Christian audience.

Thanks for any information and constructive advice.

 

[Newbie2]

Personally, in the limited space available, I would respond to the “fact based rational assertion” in that many financial and support resources are available to help such children. In addition, I would address the morality by asking the question, “Morally speaking, what is the difference between killing their child in the womb and killing one of their other children, if the family in question cannot afford to support them?” and address the real tragedy, that the author doesn’t even bother to mention the best solution for unwanted pregnancies…adoption.

The real tragedy is the the death of an innocent baby when there are couples and families waiting for infants to adopt.

I would leave out the medical consequences of abortion, as they are not accepted by the pro-abortion mindset, and a causal link is difficult to support in such a short reply.

Kudos. Go get 'em!

 

[BiologyBrain]

I agree w/ N2. Leave out the medical implications b/c the pro-abortion types aren’t going to accept that as fact anyway.

Emphasize, as N2 indicated, that killing one child is much the same as killing another - whether born or pre-born. Point out the financial considerations of the cost of the abortion, cost of after-care, etc as well as the sources available to help children in situations such as this (not enough $$ to feed them all). Perhaps include statistics on how many couples are awaiting an adoption to emphasize that the child could very well have been well loved & cared for had the parents made the BEST decision.

I would leave the morals bit for a very brief statement at the end b/c again the pro-abortion type aren’t going to be on the same page anyway. Also, be sure that any facts, sources ,etc you use are secular & not connected to the Church in anyway. Again, the pro-abortion types LOVE to pick on the ‘fact’ that the Church is biased on such issues.

 

[Mark77]

I agree with the previous ideas. There are a number of charitable and government agencies with financial support for families or even adoption.

Point out the fact that focusing on the family’s short term financial concerns as an excuse for murdering an innocent baby is not only immoral, eternal and irreversible but eliminates a beautiful human being an all of the potential for good that God gives us!

What if that baby cures cancer, saves the parents lives, just loves one other person unconditionally, grows up to be President, (great video here; catholicvote.com/), or does some other positive things?

Why is the “pro-choice” (PRO-DEATH) argument always a lose-lose (abortion murders an innocent baby and permanently wounds the mother and father and other family members)?

Why not a win-win???

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark