If all results of all kinds of sexual intercourse are seen as a sacred and protected after the moment of conception, how should we think of a woman who refuses to have sexual intercourse with a male at all? Is she not guilty of preventing new life that would been born out of that sexual encounter she denied?
We can fantasize endlessly about all the great things that this theoretical child could have had if the sexual intercourse would just have been allowed to take place. We could do this fantasizing just well as some religious people are so fond of fantasizing about the future of the fetuses that get aborted. They do this, even if they do not know if this fetus would have been still-born in just a few weeks later of would have died of a lethal disease in a few weeks after being born.
If we worry so much about the ‘rights’ of a fetus, how about the rights of the child that would have been conceived, if a woman would not have said 'no' to a man? If we really think that a woman should not have any right to control what happens in her body after any act of sexual intercourse, because the 'sacredness' of a fetus consisting of a few cells at first, how depraved must we see women who refuse even the possibility of this new and 'sacred' life from ever emerging?
At which point does a woman lose her right to decide by herself of her own fate anymore? Does this happen on the moment of sperm and egg cells merging or when the first division of the cells, the second division of the cells or the third, or does it even happen at the moment of male ejaculation?
On the other hand, the biggest responsibility for unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions lies on the people who don’t want to give children sex-education and most of all who make the easy access to contraceptives difficult in countries like the United States. However, the real blame falls on the people who continue stubbornly to make sex seem so dirty that many ordinary people just cannot talk about, for example, the use of contraceptives at all.
It seems that for many it is difficult to even speak about sex, when you have been scared stiff about even mentioning the thing for all of your life. However, as humans just are what they are, some of them will always have sex out of wedlock. If they do not have the equipment and knowledge to prevent pregnancies, the unwanted, unneeded and decidedly extremely harmful pregnancies will inevitably happen.
They will often harm the lives of all of the people involved a and most of all the life of the future, unexpected and unwanted child. On most cases, the whole drama would have been quite easily avoided with the proper use of contraceptives in the first place.
However, if you have been taught all your life that sex is something disgusting and dirty, you will be at a definite disadvantage to people who can handle the thing in a rational way. Of course, basically sex is just as natural for humans as eating and drinking. Because of this, the control of the human sexuality to the degree that many modern cultures still try to do it, is one or the most difficult tasks a society can face. The sorry fact is that most of this trouble is gone into because of old cultural baggage.
All societies throughout the human history have controlled the sexual desires and impulses of their members to a certain degree. However, the exact nature of these limitations is decided by nature and state of economic development in the society.
For example, a typical Polynesian society with a common source of resources simply has no similar sexual stigmas and limitations that the societies based on private ownership do have. Most of these limitations for sexuality that we have now have to do with the rise of the agricultural society and its needs, but in a post-industrial society they are often just cultural remnants from an age when there were no modern tools for controlling the results of sexual activity.
On the other hand, very often the most staunch opponents of abortion are paradoxically the most staunch supporters of the death penalty and aggressive foreign policies and military actions. Still, one just has to ask them: how you think about killing in a war which justification you are not personally convinced at all?
Many opponents of abortion do not in reality care at all for people who will be born against the will of their parents if abortion is made impossible. All too often they do not want to think about the poverty and an social environment that is already full of crime into which many of these unwanted children would so often be thrown into.
No, they are blinded by dogma, which of course is mostly of a religious nature. It comes from the time when contraceptives and abortion were not real options. A sorry fact is that people who are blinded by dogma cannot be argued with rationally.
However, I would still like to point out that here in Finland there are very many reasonable Christians, who see abortion or the use of contraceptives as a practical issue, as these things simply do help our society to remain a better place to live for all members of the society.
There just are less of the unwanted, uncared and unloved children who would be here without the use of contraceptives and in some cases, an early and medically safe abortion.