Pro-life or pro-choice? It’s something I hear frequently, brought up as an argument for a dinner conversation or for Facebook discussion. I’m pro-choice simply because I don’t believe the government should control a person’s body. I don’t think they have the right to suddenly decide, “Hey miss, you can’t abort your child any more, and you’re going to have to have that cancer growing inside you for nine months.” Now I’m not saying every child is a cancer – but I damn sure would say an unwanted one that’s forced to grow inside of you is.
I think the court decision Roe v. Wade was one of the most just decisions our Supreme Court has made, and because of that decision millions of would-be parents don’t have to chance ruining their lives over a stupid mistake or raising a child in a poor environment.
I think having a child that you can’t afford to raise and give a proper childhood is more murder to you and your child than aborting the thing and preventing it from having a horrible life. In my eyes, that would be the merciful thing to do. Of course, many people call me disgusting for that decision, saying that it’s destroying the potential of a new life. That word – potential – is used often when it comes to the life of a child. “You could have destroyed the kid who ends up curing all diseases!” Well on the fair side, the woman also could have aborted the next Adolf Hitler.
If you want to talk about potential, go ahead and get rid of birth control and condoms, for that matter. That’s also destroying the potential of a new life. For those who don’t believe in birth control and condoms and also are against abortion, I congratulate you for staying true to your cause. To do otherwise is simply hypocritical.
Because of pro-lifers, many abortion clinics in Mississippi have been shut down, and as a result, Mississippi has the highest teen birth rate in the nation. Not to mention we had that lousy abstinence education that barely made a difference. Teach kids about using condoms and birth control as well as suggesting waiting for sex, but don’t waste your money on the hope they’ll listen to you.
Roe v. Wade: the controversy continues: Part 1
Published: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Updated: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 09:01








1 comments Log in to Comment
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now