The Correlation between Abortion, Sex, and AIDS
Many women continue to walk into abortion clinics, coming out being left empty. Too many, abortion is seen as a form of birth control, they don't regard it as murder. They feel that because it is their bodies it is their choice. It isn't your choice, because the thing growing inside you isn't your choice.
No one can say that it is a parasite, because if I was a hippie I could say that humans were parasites of the mother Earth. Unfortunately, parasites aren't of mother Earth, and neither case can be easily dealt with. What's wrong or what's right is not discerned from the point of view of the mother.
Many pro-abortionists have even admitted it was murder, so how do they justify murder? If that's what they think, than what makes them any different from Charles Manson or Rein? The line of infanticide is easily drawn. The line begins at conception, which means that once a woman is pregnant, the child is just that, a legally protected child that should anyone find out who was the person committing the atrocity, eg abortion, then that person should be charged with the same degree of murder as those who kill women who are thirty and forty years old.
Perhaps we could start off the debate with the physical realm. During the first trimester, very little nutrition is directed towards the infant in the womb. The child also begins to have structure, and after seven weeks as a fully developed and beating heart. After 13-14 weeks, the child has recognizable brain patterns, the same ones as newborn infants. Yet, we don't consider allowing infanticide to become abortion.
Later on down the line the child begins to gain more nutrition as the fetus's body is more needed on the nutrition. It is also in other terms completely separate from the mother's body. There are no biological connections to the mother, simply other than that of an umbilical cord that transports nutrition from the mother to the child. This fact results in mother's incorrectly stating that the child is a parasite. The mother at this point in time is producing the hormones to keep the child alive, the mother isn't directing food that goes into the child, the mother is producing it for the child.
After the next trimester, the child has everything, the organs needed, it just needs to incubate. In fact, many abortions/miscarriages after the first trimester run the chance that should the child be alive at the point, that an incubator could keep the child alive. So what's with the senseless killing if women simply want to get the baby out of their body? Wait till a certain time, change abortion clinics into incubation clinics, throw the child into one, therefore allowing the mother to continue her life.
There is one other fine point to mention on the topic of biological and hormonal development of the fetus. The point is the system that is incubating the child in the women's body in the first place. It is meant not to be penetrated, as in it is meant not to be breached by others. It is an ecosystem designed specifically for the child, and that child is the main, and vital part of that ecosystem.
The system in itself is designed not to be tampered with. In fact, many problems can arise from this should it be breached. For example, any mistake, regardless of seriousness, could lead to a complete destruction of the uterus, either from infection, and can often cause infertility in women.
Now let's enter into the philosophical effects of abortion on women. What results is post-mortem depression. Often times the effects are permanent. Women cry on the day the child was aborted, they are constantly plagued by dreams of the brutally mutilated child asking questions concerning the early termination.
The primary rebuttal claimed by pro-choice, these dreams and emotions are produced by the pro-life.
In fact, Roe vs. Wade only justified abortion in the case that the mother's life would come to an end with large risk to the life of the fetus. Only according to Roe vs. Wade does this apply to. A further argument later claimed in the same year gave permission, saying that if a woman's mind could become endangered, then there's reasonable cause as well. The second is justifiable, the second, not so much, the warped meaning of these two sentences, abortion is legal and no-risk, as well as a form of birth control.
Shouldn't the best form of birth control be the illegalization of abortion? Perhaps then people could wake up and see the consequences. Some points of the Right-to-Life, including the potential to stop the spread of the AIDS virus, lends many to believe that should abortion be made illegal, women would not seek sex as much, for the fact they run the possibility of conception, and that men would, should they have a sexual relationship, use a condom. It should also correlate to a mandatory AIDS test evaluation. This information, in order to protect the life of the partner, should be made available to the public.
As much as this would help, we could track many of the dangerous diseases, therefore aiding in preventing the spread of the disease. Does the government not have the right to quarantine the nation should a deadly biological pathogen be released? The measures are no different.
In quarantine we could monitor much more closely the effects of the disease, and perhaps then we could create a cure, but so long as the disease is left unchecked, which means no quarantine, then the disease runs the possibility of mutating. Seeing as there is cure currently in existence, then perhaps it should be noted that the disease is likely to evolve.
Another correlation, and it means reopening biological research, is creating a bacteria that could consume the HIV virus without harming the body. The other point in creating this, so that the bacteria itself does not mutate into a harmful pathogen, is to create the antibiotic to treat the virus.
Further research into the biological field may or may not be needed.