The conservative side:
Babies are considered people at conception, and these babies are innocent and can't take up for themselves, so someone has to do it. Every person has a right to life, and no one should be allowed to take that right away. Either way you slice it, we're talking about the life of a human being, and therefore, abortion is murder.
The liberal side:
Fetuses are not considered people until a certain point in their development, such as when they develop a brain, or when they are able to breathe. Each person's perspective on when a fetus becomes an actual person with a life is different. Different doctors say different things about this too. It seems like there may not be a real answer to this - at least not an answer humans will ever find. So until this clump of cells becomes an actual person with rights and an actual life, women should have the ability to discontinue its development. This is an issue of women's rights to their own bodies, as their bodies are forced to change for a fetus's development, and the process is very long and painful. Also, the woman's life is expected to change in countless ways during the development of the fetus, and for the rest of the woman's life, potentially destroying all of that woman's dreams and aspirations, while the life of the man involved is not always expected to change much, if at all.
Now, you can obviously make your own opinion about what you believe here. I personally think each side has a very valid point. However, I guess it comes down to which standard you think is more important (the life of a child or women's right,) and whether or not you believe a fetus is a human being with rights at conception. Anyway, that's not really my focus of this discussion at all. In any controversial topic, a lot of the time no one is right or wrong. A lot of the time, it's just a matter of opinion and perspective. So what do we do about this? We find a solution, that's what. We find middle ground somewhere and make a compromise. This is what governments are supposed to do when coming up with laws that will benefit all people involved. So how in the world could two completely opposite perspectives join in the middle and compromise?
How about we make it easier to adopt babies? I'm not at all saying that we make it EASY to adopt. I'm just saying the adoption process is extremely difficult, so lots of people look at it as being impossible. As the process stands now, if I were to get pregnant, I would never look at adoption as being a possibility, because it is too hard for people to adopt. I would immediately rule that out as a possibility, because my baby would end up being taken by the state and kept in horrible housing conditions, and he/she might end up being put in foster care or an orphanage. That would be more likely than my kid actually being adopted. And to me, putting a kid through that is just not right. So why not make the adoption process easier? If the mom is a little overweight, who cares? Lots of overweight people have their own babies and take good care of them. If the dad's late great grandfather was bipolar, that doesn't mean that dad will develop the disorder, or that the child will be exposed to it (since the great grandfather that actually had the disorder is deceased.) And if the parents are gay, who cares? All kinds of studies have shown that gay parents take just as good care of kids as straight parents do, in most cases - besides the human rights aspect of it (the fact that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, and that includes the right to adopt.) There's actually a quote that I, for the life of me, can't find online, but I saw it somewhere, and it was great. It was something about how straight people who give up their baby for adoption have already failed, so why in the world would we not give gay people an opportunity to make up for it, since every couple that has failed at parenting and given their kid up for adoption is a straight couple? It's also extremely expensive to adopt. I've heard it usually costs between 20 and 40 thousand dollars per adoption, but I've also heard that a lot of adoptions cost well over that. Why is this so? This seems ridiculous. There has to be a way to make it more affordable!
My point is we need some change here. There are too many kids out there who need a loving home, and the adoption process is too difficult. If I were a child with no parents and no home, I'd rather have a family and home than to have the governmentally certified PERFECT home, especially since that would be very unlikely to happen to me, since I would very likely remain in an orphanage or foster care my whole life. So I guess I need to change that statement to: If I were a child with no parents, I would rather have a not-so-perfect family and home than to live on the streets or in an orphanage or foster care my whole life. Besides, all kinds of families that end up passing the adoption process are not perfect. I actually personally know 2 couples that adopted at least one kid and have since divorced. And the other part of my point is that people would probably be less likely to get abortions if they saw the adoption process as being a possibility. So you want a way to give people the rights they deserve, give countless deserving children homes, and keep people from having abortions? Make the adoption process easier - not EASY - but easier.
By the way, I'm just going to throw this out here for what it's worth: I always say people should adopt animals from pounds, rather than breeding new animals, since there are all kinds of perfectly great animals already out there who need homes. Well, the same goes for people. Try to adopt before having your own kids! Or do both! It's a great idea, and you'll make an amazing difference in a child's life. Plus it's less painful.
I think this was a study done in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment