Originally Posted by Viewfinder

Utopia would be the only thing that would solve that problem. Women usually have pretty good reasons for getting abortions (ie they know that they're not ready for children, don't have a responsible husband, don't have financial stability, etc.) If the state somehow is able to force them to give birth, those children will not have a fantastic chance at a normal life. The sad reality is that the infant adoption waiting list would be exhausted within the first couple of years after an abortion ban. Most of these children would either be raised in poverty, or in orphanages which is worse. And there would be a real cost to society, both financially and socially. Crime would almost certainly go up and so would transfer payments.

I think the question we should ask ourselves is why do we seem to be so concerned with the lives of embryos? I want to be careful here because I myself used to be very much against abortion, so I know what the emotions are behind that position and I respect them. But, upon further thought, I realized that we're really only talking about a life in the barest biological sense. The first trimester embryo has no ability to think, feel, or be aware of anything including it's own life. When it dies, nothing has been lost except flesh. It had no relationships, it didn't love, it didn't hate, it didn't exist as a person. Anti-abortionism is really rooted in a fundamentalist Christian hatred of sexuality, in my opinion. They oppose abortion because they oppose the kind of sex that usually creates the need for abortion (premarital, extra-marital, teenage, you name it). In fact, if you look at the major political issues that the religious right is most riled up about, they all have something to do with sex (abortion, gays, porn, prostitution, TV indecency), so we know these people are absolutely obsessed by sex, almost to the exclusion of concern for anything else.

Further proof that their opposition to abortion is almost completely about sex is the fact that they have not lifted a finger to advocate for state or federal bans on all private and public scientific research that destroys human embryos. If their fight against abortion is really all about "saving the babies" then why not pressure legislatures and Congress to ban this form of experimentation which results in scores of dead embryos every year? Might the reason be because it has nothing to do with sinful sex? And remember that their opposition to embryonic stem cell research funding was essentially forced, that is they were forced to take a position on it defensively after Bill Clinton created the issue by suggesting that the research be funded by the federal government. They opposed it because they had to in order to remain consistent.

So, basically, I believe that the opposition to abortion is primarily prudish in nature, but secondarily sentimental in nature. All of the pro-life activism in this country over the years has created a popular sentimental sympathy in the general public for embryos and fetuses. But people don't stop to think that an abortion destroys a life that doesn't even know it's alive. Farm animals have far greater awareness and consciousness than embryos or fetuses, but most people don't sit around worrying about the fact that thousands of them are slaughtered everyday so that we can enjoy tasty food. I don't either. It's not pretty, but it's a necessary part of life and it's not murder because we're not talking about thinking, reasoning, aware beings. Same with abortion, in my opinion.