I try to respect every religion probably more than they respect me since majority of them try to obtain more followers, some through dubious means not so long ago (Crusades, Saint wars, so on) as well as imposing their ways on the rest of us.
I think this idea of banning abortion comes almost in its entirety from Christian religions, whom believe life starts at the moment of conception. What I keep wondering myself is how can you say something is living if it doesn´t do it by itself?
At the moment of conception the fetus needs the mother to survive, and this keeps going on for several months, although some babies survive birth from around 6 months onwards. This argument also links with the concept of Euthanasia, in my opinion if you need a machine to survive and there is no chance of you recovering I think that is not living, just postponing the inevitable.
But “life” definitions aside politicians and men specially should evaluate their positions towards abortion since women´s health is being negatively impacted by their proposals and that should be considered a violation of women rights and a clear act of discrimination by gender.
The reality is that many women need contraceptive pills to tackle health problems such as periods that are not regular o more serious issues that without care could develop in cancer or loosing the ability to have children. These women may or may not have sex, it is wrong to assume they are using these methods so they can have sex without getting pregnant when health is at stake. This argument goes to all people that attacked Sandra Fluke due to her appearance in USA Congress for explaining the economic struggle of a friend of hers because her mandatory pill was not covered in her health policy.
Other women need an abortion because their life is in peril due to the pregnancy. What would be the answer for those women? That religion is more important than their health just because they are women? I thought Jesus said to treat people as you would want them to treat you. And this is why I think male politicians should be women for a day, so they could check first hand how their religious agenda would impact their health and day to day life.
There is another proportion of women that use contraceptive methods so they can plan their careers and their family; in many cases these decisions are made together with their partner. If women can´t have control over their body we wouldn´t be better than cows or chicken stored in the farm to “mass produce babies”. Abortion regulators seem to think is better having all the children that nature want to give instead of having them in a controlled way so we can provide for them, (forgive me if I don´t even consider the absurdity of the abstinence argument).
Taking or not contraceptives, this issue also impacts on all those women whom got pregnant through rape or incest and whom the trauma of the act itself should be enough if they want to stop the pregnancy. Among all the politicians saying that women need to carry to term any pregnancy by law , the ones that need my approach the most are those forcing rape and incest victims to have a child (Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock, Rep. Paul Ryan and others whom need a basic biology lesson like Todd Akin). I don´t wish harm to anyone but perhaps if they were women (to those whom are men), forced to have a sexual relationship and then forced go through all the psychological and physical consequences from having a child product of that act they would see the brutality of their ideas.
If they were women for one day and see how many health issues are linked to contraceptive products I can only hope they would see the unfairness of it all.