Sexual immorality is just a term used by hypocrites to impose unreasonable and unrealistic standards of behaviour on other people. You clearly have little experience of why women actually seek abortions. Pregnancy can be a catastrophic problem, blighting careers, forestalling education, destroying family relationships and in some cases threatening lives. These effects fall entirely on women, and it is right that those women should be the sole judge of whether an abortion is a solution.
I would certainly agree that a malformed foetus, which is often discovered quite late in pregnancy, should be grounds for abortion should a woman want one. But how do you define abnormality? Down's syndrome? Cleft palette?
Do you mean countries where women are systematically abused? Where girls are not educated? Where women have limited rights or economic prospects? Do you really expect women to accept this second hand treatment and loss of control over their life chances?
[Using legalities to justify abortion doesn't make it moral. The law is not something that can be used to define what is moral and what it's not. It's only good for covering something that stinks using legal acrobatics. Killing a life is still killing it at the moment of conception. Life starts at conception and not when the baby is fully functional.
I quite agree. Morality is not the same as legality. Morality is a personal judgement on how and how not to behave. I have no problem with people using moral arguments to attempt to have the law changed, even if I don't agree with them.
However, the reason
this is such a controversial issue is that the moral argument cuts both ways. I believe that removing the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of an early foetus is morally grotesque. Abortion has been made legal for the reason that many people regard a legal abortion provision to be a moral one.
This would be more realistic if there
were not huge numbers of unwanted and unplaced children already awaiting adoption.
[/QUOTE]
Red bolding mine.
I see, you value jobs, delaying education, etc. over the life of a human being. It's clear that this minimizes responsibility of the mother. So, you can murder your child for a better job. So you can murder your child, if it interferes with your plans delays your education.
This is someone I know and respect. She has a two year old. Would it be alright with you if she killed her child to get a better job, better financial means?
Now it all comes down to perfection. Ever care for Down's children? I have, and they are most loving people on the planet. A Cleft palette? That's right kill anything that doesn't meet one's expectation of a perfect child even if it can easily be fixed? Shameful, and immoral to the max. Dr. Mengele would approve.
It's time to do a minimal amount of research. Provide research that says babies aren't adopted. I know for a fact this is not true. But let's not quibble. Just provide research.
Don't try to weasel out by talking about children that are not babies. Abortion is about babies, not older children.