Last Sunday, my priest rambled about the ongoing election and who we should vote for as devout Catholics. He discreetly told us when he stated, “I voted for the candidate that does not support abortion. I voted for the candidate that sought to keep the Church’s ideals. When you vote, please remember the Church’s standards.” Essentially, my priest told all the attendants to vote for Trump because his presidency will prevent the practice of terminating unborn babies. Well, if you’re going to phrase it that way, abortion just seems like an iniquity. I gave some thought to the word “Abortion” itself. Why does it just sound so awful? Maybe, because it has become reappropriated by religious figures demonizing it. We fail to see the other side to
…show more content…
You are ending the potential of a human life.” I say malarkey. We could continue ask and ponder “What if?” What if the baby was going to become the next Mark Twain, Malala Yousafzai, or Maya Angelou? By giving into the belief of an unborn child’s potential, we have already given more rights to a fetus on what women can do with their body than the women themselves (Scott). Somehow a woman has been denied the rights to her body, but an unborn child seems to have jurisdiction. Crusaders for anti-abortion have considered what is best for the baby, in which they become the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. It is these crusaders who have silenced women and disregarded the burden a child can place on a woman. It’s ironic, the so called “heroes” that are against abortion care more about a non-existent child than an actual person. They care more about what the baby can be rather than the woman who already loves, laughs, and lives. The notion of the “potential” of a person should never outweigh the needs of an actual …show more content…
It would be a much easier route for me to be against abortion because who really wants to “kill a baby” as the church and pro-life supporters phrase it? But by obeying everything a religious institution or angry protester tells me, I would forget that the decision to abort a child remains to be decided by the mother alone and none other. So, I definitely won’t be going to church next week because an undeveloped fetus feeding off a woman should never have more of a say in a woman’s body than the actual
You are ending the potential of a human life.” I say malarkey. We could continue ask and ponder “What if?” What if the baby was going to become the next Mark Twain, Malala Yousafzai, or Maya Angelou? By giving into the belief of an unborn child’s potential, we have already given more rights to a fetus on what women can do with their body than the women themselves (Scott). Somehow a woman has been denied the rights to her body, but an unborn child seems to have jurisdiction. Crusaders for anti-abortion have considered what is best for the baby, in which they become the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. It is these crusaders who have silenced women and disregarded the burden a child can place on a woman. It’s ironic, the so called “heroes” that are against abortion care more about a non-existent child than an actual person. They care more about what the baby can be rather than the woman who already loves, laughs, and lives. The notion of the “potential” of a person should never outweigh the needs of an actual …show more content…
It would be a much easier route for me to be against abortion because who really wants to “kill a baby” as the church and pro-life supporters phrase it? But by obeying everything a religious institution or angry protester tells me, I would forget that the decision to abort a child remains to be decided by the mother alone and none other. So, I definitely won’t be going to church next week because an undeveloped fetus feeding off a woman should never have more of a say in a woman’s body than the actual