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>.
