Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic

2 comments | 12:55 am | top |
Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.

On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.

Fairey sums up her talk as follows:

1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.

Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.

She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.

"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."

And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.

The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...

Continue Reading

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Canterbury Atheists said...

Andy, please define what is a Pro-Lifer and a Pro-Abortionist is?

Would someone who say agreed in terminating pregnancies of rape victims, yet disagreed with other circumstances, still be termed a pro-abortionist?

Or say a Christian who believes it is O.K for their God to terminate births, because Gods have more rights that mothers and fathers. Christians by definition must be termed pro-abortionists?

What about my stance (a.) I leave it up to the individual to run their own lives (b.) I hate the way Yahweh kills millions of defenseless unborn every week.

Am I pro-life or pro-abortion or agnostic?

Perhaps you can put-up a layman definition on ‘Exposing ALRANZ’ so neutrals like me can better get to grips with the terms.

The individuals you supposedly expose seem to be for given people choice?

Is that no longer ACT philosophy?

Cheers.

Paul.

3:33 pm, August 30, 2010 
Blogger Andy said...

1. A pro-lifer is someone who defends all human life... A pro-abortionist, I don't know - I suppose they are in favour of abortionists.

2. Yes.

3. I've answered you on this one before Paul - God is not an abortionist - Christianity teaches that man brought sin into the world.

4. Part a) of your stance is naive, because you're not taking into account, those individuals who, left to run their own lives, will hurt or kill others. That is why laws are in place to prevent/punish such actions. Part b) - see above.

5. I don't know - what are you?

6. Exposing ALRANZ is about shedding a whole lotta light on the abortion industry and the abortion lobby in New Zealand.

7. Those in favour of abortion are advocating for women to be allowed to make their own choice - however the fundamental problem with this, is that abortion is a bad choice.

Cheers,
Andy

12:19 pm, September 01, 2010 

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

blog design by equipbiz | this blog is best viewed with Firefox. Remember: Friends don't let friends use Internet Exporer. :)