Sep 23, 2011

A Controversial Review of Technology and Its Impact On Abortion


Desensitized From Infanticide
The human race has its views on abortion distorted and technology is to blame. This is because society, with the use of technology, has desensitized our beliefs about abortion. Many people have differing views about abortion and whether or not it should be legal. People in this world are having their views and morals distorted because of technology and how easily technology has made abortions possible. Technology used by the media is making abortions appear to be like nothing has happened, or nothing really is occurring. It’s as though technology has shut the curtains from the truth and it’s making abortion appear like it’s not a problem.
Technology has made it easier for people to spread bad news, including against politicians. Take for instance when Obama was accused of voting for infanticide in the early 2000’s, the conservative media was all over it. Regardless of that Senate Bill’s intentions, it proves to me one again how every just ignores the fact that abortion appears to be some senseless topic with a political emphasis. Sources like the Huffington Post are all too eager to defend politicians that support the pro-choice movement but the second that a source claims a pro-life stance, the liberal media is all too quick to slander them. Technology has allowed certain news sources to omit pertinent information that would be for, or against the pro-choice movement and typically not the latter.
Abortion is infanticide and it’s largely common in most countries, including ours with over 1.2 million abortions in 2008. This may not seem like a significant number but since 1973 (the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision) the number has contributed to the 50 million fetuses that were aborted in clinics. The way this is portrayed in the media is even more frightening because it appears that nobody really cares about what is going on. It’s as though technology has allowed abortion to be “cool” or something. These numbers are not being represented in these news sources, such as The Huffington Post which certainly has a pro-choice stance. I feel as though the human race is losing its grip on reality and like we don’t care that the male lion is going to eat our cubs.
            While there are many arguments made by the pro-choice movement, most of them reflect around personal choice. With all of this technology regarding birth control pills, why can’t people be responsible for their actions instead of relying abortions? It would be acceptable for a woman to have an abortion under the rare circumstances of incest, a woman being raped or her health is in danger from the pregnancy. Those few examples are very rare and important but the other times a woman gets an abortion is never discussed.  This is why technology can show things to support the pro-choice movement and omit topics that would make even the most pro-choice person cringe.
            For the woman who might actually need abortion due to health reasons or after being raped, it’s extremely unfortunate and I agree with that position fully. Technology can help women get through these tough times and keep her safe when conducting a safe abortion. While the technology can benefit some, the rest of the human populace is guilty of just wanting an abortion to get rid of an unwanted baby. 1 out of every 4 pregnancies is aborted not from natural causes or from miscarriages and I’m curious how this number has gotten so large. If there are so many of these abortions happening without these rare circumstances, then why do we keep letting these lions eat our cubs?
Since technology made it easier for women to get early term abortions, it also has helped society become desensitized from seeing abortion for what it really is. If you take a scientific standpoint of this issue, everyone should recall their lessons from the genetics course in college. Pro-choice people might have forgotten what technology proved and they should understand the fetus has its own genetic code from the moment of conception and it’s different than the mother’s DNA. If the fetus, lump of tissue, blood clot, fungus, tree stump or whatever people consider it, was actually part of the mother’s body, her DNA would have “coded” for it. This is an example of how technology proved the baby was only sharing the mother’s body but we still have become desensitized from this very fact because of the mass media using technology against the basic facts.
There are a lot of people who will attempt to use invalid sources for their argument and state that the legalization of abortion in the 1970’s caused a reduction in crime in later years. It’s like people using the book, “Freakonomics,” as a source for their argument and claim that the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade allowed women to abort babies that would otherwise be criminals in the 1990’s. “Without the core assumption that Roe increased the number of abortions, the Freakonomics theory does not stand” (Gleeson). This means that those who propose this argument are essentially biased for abortions, and not looking to the actual reductions in crime and producing a popular fallacious argument that correlation means causation. In other words, it was just a coincidence and once again technology is being used to disregard common sense.
It’s fascinating that some people in the pro-choice movement will use whatever means necessary to “prove” their points so they can win the debate. Technology has made abortions easier because instead of focusing on a dangerous surgery, a woman can simply take a pill in the earlier weeks to terminate her pregnancy. If a politician is accused of infanticide, the media can use technology to defend or support the politician. When there is a book that supports to pro-choice movement, it’s regarded as truthful when in fact it was been debunked as false. This false consensus that abortion is perfectly normal is due to technology and the methods of it used from politicians, the media and the ease of use from clinical procedures. When will we learn to stop eating our cubs?
Work Cited:
"Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States." Guttmacher Institute: Home Page. Jan. 2011.
Web. 10 Mar. 2011. guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html>.

Jones, Rachel, Lawrence Finer, and Susheela Singh. "Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients,
2008."Guttmacher Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2011.
guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf>.

Gleeson, Kate. "Freakonomics and That Very Convenient Abortion Myth." 6 July 2008. Web. 7
Mar. 2011. polsis.uq.edu.au/apsa2008/Refereed-papers/Gleeson.pdf>.

Walls, Seth C. "The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"" The Huffington Post. Aug. 2008.
Web. 12 Mar. 2011. huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-
against-ob_n_116891.html>.