Who's Right? 2
Following my recent article on whether abortion is Pro-Choice
image credits: source
First and foremost:
Let's be clear: there are two sides to this debate: pro-life and pro-abortion. Pro-Choice is chosen between the red and white shirts as you wake up in the morning. If proponents of abortion want the word "choice" in their name, I'll call them "Anti-Choice," since that's precisely what they offer to each kid they kill.
Having said that, any pro-abortion advocates on read.cash who want to engage in a dialogue with me on the subject are welcome to do so, as long as it isn't a hair-pulling contest or some other pointless debate. A conversation that is serious and open-minded is always appreciated. Stepping on toes is OK since it demonstrates that no territorial boundaries have been created; after all, how else can I pull you to "my side" if there is a territorial line between us?!
image credits: source
Please bear with me on this one. I'd be charged with theft if I went to the nearby chicken farm and took a newly laid egg. Despite the fact that the egg has not yet hatched, and the young chicken has not yet been born, this is the case. It's a question of "productive assets." Despite the fact that the chick hasn't hatched, the egg is valuable to the breeder. Obviously, the egg is valuable as a food source, and it also has the potential to be used as a meat supply or another chicken that produces eggs.
So, how does it work with a fetus? They have the potential to be productive, but they aren't worth much right now? They've spent the previous nine months causing their mother's depressive episodes and strange eating habits, so she decides she no longer wants the God-breathed kid. She can legally "dispose" of him/her as long as he/she hasn't seen the light of day. Oh, but wait, that's no longer true since even though the child has seen the light of day, he still lacks the right to life. After all, his/her feet haven't seen a delivery room yet, so there's still time to terminate.
image credits: source
So, when does a child start working? Shouldn't we be allowed to "choose" whether to retain a child after witnessing their destructive behavior as a regular two-year-old? Don't we at the very least deserve a "test drive"? To determine whether we truly desire a kid.
What if, instead, we wanted to raise a kid and share those carefree years with them? However, once kids reach those ostensibly squandered years of adolescent rebellion, how about we get rid of them now?
Isn't it true that adolescence seems to induce more severe mood swings than pregnancy? And using your hard-earned money to support the local Fast food King, while our tax dollars pay for them to go to school, where they never paid attention in the first place. Then there are the weekend devastation and drinking parties. But maybe the thought is, "We've come this far... a few more years, and they'll be handy in the workplace, so we'd better keep them now."
So how cruel am I to advocate for the death of hyperactive kids and enraged teenagers? It doesn't seem much crueler than murdering an innocent infant, who provides the most peace because they sleep 90% of the time!
Is this a question of productivity? Perhaps, but most likely not. It's a matter of moral degradation in society. It's another step of transformation. You may legally kill a kid during the first trimester, then the second, and third, and now you can take his or her life as long as they aren't fully born.
Image credits: source
A doctor may be on the verge of executing a legal abortion, but if a psychopath rushes in and murders both the woman and the kid, he will be charged with double murder. I merely query, "Why?” How can anyone be charged with murder if they kill the fetus of a pregnant woman? Is a fetus merely if we don't want it, but a kid if we do? Is a teen a fetus, if none of us desired it?
Consider what is acceptable in today's culture against what was acceptable 50 years ago. Throughout the transitional stages, you'll see an unsettling tendency of gradual degradation. Will I be instructed to "learn fast, things are different"? Should society be told, "Get used to it; things have changed?" Because things are unique, but uniqueness isn't necessarily a good thing. Society must "wake up" and see that we are regressing rather than developing.
The ideal choice may be to abort a less productive civilization, but who would execute such a procedure? What about the one who gave us life, to begin with?
Aborting this article does not abort this message!