I'm one of the few people who identify as leftist and liberal that you will ever hear utter these words: I
strongly oppose abortion without restrictions. Vehemently so.
With that said, I do believe there are circumstances where it ought to be at least a
choice, and I am confident you will agree with these: in saving the mother's life; in cases of child molestation; and in cases of rape.
The first two, I think it is mostly necessary: if the mother's life is in imminent danger, she ought to have a choice. AS for the second: children often aren't grown enough to physically bear the strain of having children of their own.
The third, while I agree with there being
choice, I would personally counsel any such victim of rape to consider that it is not the child's fault. In other-words, while I support a raped woman's choice, I would encourage her to turn to her maternal instincts for guidance and consider that the child is not culpable for the crime committed against her.
Is that a fair set of criteria in your opinion?
The reason I ask, is because cutting funding help to women in
all circumstances globally, means young girls having the children of abuse, often not being able to physically endure labour and childbirth; women whose lives are in danger dying in childbirth, having to continue regardless; and victims of rape being forced to endure sex, pregnancy and labour against their consent. What this also means is that many more thousands will die in cheap, dirty abortion procedures.
2
