Let me preface this post by addressing any pregnant women out there who are considering abortion as an alternative. Please, please consider giving your child up for adoption. There are many families out there who are unable to have children on their own, and adoption is their only hope for having kids. My wife and I have been trying unsuccessfully to conceive for over two years, and I can personally testify that it has been a depressing reality. If we ever decide to adopt, I can already promise you that the biological mother of our future child would be doing us one of the kindest acts of charity I can imagine. Check out adoption.com or crisispregnancy.com for more information.
I think that of all the issues in politics today that people feel passionately about, abortion may be the most prominent. It's a make-or-break issue for many; some will never vote for a "pro-life" candidate, some will never vote for a "pro-choice" candidate. Some believe that abortion is akin to murder; some believe that legislating abortion is akin to taking away a woman's most basic human rights, and so on, and so on. It's a tough, emotional issue. Here's my take:
I'm firmly pro-choice. Though I personally feel abortion is immoral, I believe that the choice to abort belongs solely to the pregnant woman. She will have to justify her choice - as we all will justify all our choices - before her God. The role of government, however, is not to take away our medical options, nor our personal liberty. The Supreme Court has established a reasonable standard, in the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, whereby abortions are permissible up to the point of viability, i.e., the fetus can live on its own, outside the mother's body. The determination of this point in the life of the fetus is a medical issue. Let me explain how I deal with some of the common arguments against my position:
"Abortion is murder, i.e., the ultimate deprivation of another human being's liberty. The government must outlaw it."
I disagree, because I do not believe a fetus to be a human being, though it has the potential to become such. If the fetus has not developed to the point where it can live on its own, it is not yet a human being.
"Based on that argument, any person who has become dependent on machines is not a human being."
There's an important, reasonable distinction between a person who was born - in other words, a person who has achieved personhood - and a fetus which never has.
"The Church is against abortion. Therefore abortion is wrong."
Agreed. I also believe that the ingestion of coffee is wrong. Do I think there should be a law against it? On the contrary, there is no justification for legislating against coffee-drinking. (Please don't think I'm being glib by comparing abortion to drinking coffee; it's just an analogy).
The Church opposes elective abortion for its members, but allows for exceptions (rape/incest, life of the mother in danger, fetal defects which preclude life after birth), in consultation with the Lord and with local church leaders. The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion. See this link for the official Church statement.
"You're wrong, and heartless."
Wrong is always a possiblity; heartless, not so much, except in that it rips my heart out to think about it, but what's right is not always what's easy, and it's unjust to take this right away.
Look, I don't expect this blog to convince a single soul; I've never met anyone that hasn't thoroughly thought this issue through. These are my thoughts, though, for what they're worth. Thanks for reading.
A sad topic
Posted by Unknown on 2/12/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Mike, I'm right there with you. I feel that elective abortion in most cases is an immoral and callous disregard of human life, and a far too convenient way to escape a parent's responsibilities. However, my disinclination for governmental regulation of abortion is borne of slightly different logic.
I fully support the Church's position on abortion, which allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, where the fetus cannot survive after birth, and where the life or health of the mother is seriously in danger.
That "in health" clause is so important. Put yourself in the shoes of a pregnant woman who has to choose between the life of her child and serious health complications brought about by carrying the child to term. Would you want the federal government telling you what to do? I wouldn't either.
Besides, the Church's position is not enforceable. Medical experts have testified on the record in the courts and in front of Congress that any pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother. Following that logic, all abortions would be legal.
This is just another one of those issues for which there is no great solution. And as with many of the other similar issues, I'll leave them in the hands of the people rather than the bureaucrats.
On a lighter note, this may be a good solution for all of the right-to-lifers out there... :)
On such an issue as abortion, if a candidate cannot take an absolute stand for protecting the sanctity of human life, the most basic premise of moral society, it calls into question his or her ability to lead a free people. To me it has little to do with the political practicality of whether such decisions should be made by the federal government or by the states or not at all. It is issue of whether someone has the courage to stand tall in face of popular opinion and stake his or her political life on protection of human life.
Mike - I imagine you could see this coming from 100 miles away, but I am going to respectfully disagree. Abortion should not be legal. I agree with your last paragraph in that nobody is going to be swayed either way on this one, so I'm going to head a slightly different, but related, direction.
Here's one of the biggest problems I have with the government's involvement here. If you were to go out and shoot and kill a pregnant woman (and her unborn child in the process), any idea how many murders you are charged with? Two. The government will go after you for killing two people. So why are certain people "allowed" to kill an unborn child while other people are charged with murder?
If you are going to have a "national" legal postition, it should be the same across all laws.
And that Onion story is freaking hilarious!
Well, That's two and two - I'm going with Mike and Dave (Surprise!). Mike, your post was exceptionally well thought out and beautifully worded. The only thing I'd add is that - This is not a new issue. It's not as if in the 1960's, women suddenly got this novel idea to maunally end pregnancy. The concept is as old as pregnancy itself. There is evidences of prehistoric abortion. Now, precedent does not make something alright - however, what I'd argue is that abortion is going to happen. It will either happen in a clinic/medical room, or in a back alley. It will either be conducted by a doctor with the safety of the mother as a primary concern, or it will be done as a black-market commodity by a quack with a stick. Either we let such potential mothers who make bad choices and harmful mistakes go on living life and try to make better choices, or we lock them in prison...For me, it's a pretty clear choice.
Rick, your comment is a perfect example of why I just can't understand the logic of liberal democrats. In essence, what you are saying is it's ok for one to make a bad choice and not suffer the consequence. This mindset promotes laziness, irresponsibility, and dependence on the government.
Generally speaking, if one is smart enough to know how to engage in the sex act, one is also smart enough to know what can happen as a consequence of that action. I do agree that abortion is allowable in the case of rape, incest and so on.
To allow abortion mainstream is to say "no big deal, it's just a human life. Go have sex again, and if you get pregnant just come back and we'll can take care of it." ONE MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONES ACTIONS! Yes abortion will still happen. Murder will also happen, but we don't say "ah don't worry about it, just try to do better next time."
This is the same mindset democrats have with welfare. "Let's give the poor people more money, these people have no work"! Of course they don't! the government is paying them to stay home and be lazy (I'm sorry, "energy deficient". I don't want to use a word that would offend). Don't try to tell me that the poor can't get a decent paying job. It's called hard work and dedication. We must be held responsible for our actions.
I could go on and on about
taxation of the "rich" and other policies that promote "energy deficient" Americans but I wont. I only share these issues to illustrate a point. irresponsibility is not the answer!
Matt, do you actually know anyone who has taken advantage of the welfare system? Personally? This could be a whole other topic.
And using a euphemistic term in quotation marks, obviously spitefully, isn't less offensive to me. :) I wasn't born yesterday!
I personally am completely unsatisfied with any conclusion I come to regarding abortion. Obviously my personal view is that children are wonderful, and they are blessings and I absolutely cannot imagine having an abortion under any circumstances. It's very, very hard for me to wrap my brain around.
But there are circumstances in which I feel it could be appropriate, and under those circumstances I feel that it should be between the mother (and father, ideally), her doctor, and her God. I don't know how to define the difference, from a legislative standpoint.
I do absolutely agree that if one can be charged for murder of an unborn child (and I did find cases in a brief search online in which the defendant was charged with two counts, even before the "point of viability" so it seems that that is a possibility, at least in some states. That is nuts, I'll give you that!
And I don't know how much you men types have thought about this, but how do you all feel about potentially abortifacient birth control methods, such as IUDs, the "morning after pill", etc? These operate in part by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg. At what point do you consider "life" to begin?
This issue is very sad for me - most people, the vast majority that I talk to, basically feel the same way about it (they would never personally have an abortion, but they don't feel entirely comfortable making it "illegal" per se)and yet it's such a wedge for people. For so many people, this is their litmus issue - they can't vote for a candidate who falls on the other side of it. I also have a hard time understanding that particular thought process - people are so much more complicated than that, to me, it's hard to imagine reducing it neatly to one line.
This is where religious beliefs, political viewpoints, government regulations and tolerance all come to a screeching collision. I have waffled in the past on this issue. I can see both sides of the argument. If I had to choose between my wife dying and my unborn child being aborted, then Im certainly going for "Whoopi Goldberg to block" and choosing my wife. I guess that as a conservative I feel wholeheartedly that Abortion for the sake of abortion is wrong, But that does not mean that they need to control it on a federal level. But maybe they do....see I told you i waffle on it. Im glad that all things will have answers in the end.
Mike, I would like to say that I do think the biological father should have some say in it. Obviously no one can FORCE a woman to give up a child she wants, but it seems cruel that some men would like to keep the baby and don't even get asked what their opinion is. They get told that "its been taken care of"...what a blow to trust in THAT relationship!
Wizzle, I understand it is hard to reduce issues like this to one line. It is a complicated and emotional issue. Nevertheless, We must set standards and stick to them. For example, many people, myself included, drive above the posted speed limit. Is this reason enough to increase the speed limit? No, then we'll all go that much faster, and inturn want the speed limit increased once more. We have to stick to our standards and not compromise. There will always be certain cases inwhich abortion will be negotiable, but we shouldn't lower the overall standard for these few cases.
I think one of the saddest parts of the abortion debate is the way in which it has come to dominate American politics. Especially the way in which it has come to dominate judicial appointments.
This is especially apparent now, during a presidential election. There are so many important issues out there: War, health care, poverty, immigration, taxes, etc. But there are many (especially members of the church) who choose their candidates based almost entirely on their positions on abortion.
And ironically, because Roe v. Wade is established precedent, the President has little actual control over abortion policy. Abortion politics short-circuit what could be much more interesting political dialogue.
Thank you, Doug - I feel the exact same way - it seems there is much more to running a country than wether or not you are for abortion - but people forget this and make this topic the deciding factor in so many of their political inclinations.
When I talked about people and things being complicated, I wasn't referring to whether abortion is "ok" or not - more along the lines of what Doug mentioned, that many people choose to make someone's abortion-rights status the sole deciding factor in whether or not they will vote for that person, or on which party to belong to, etc. That is what I don't get.
I actually do totally agree with you that just because something happens, or will always happen, is not justification to condone or legalize it. That's not a sound argument to me.
But how do you think we should address the concerns of women who need this option available to them (for medical reasons, or whatever reasons that you consider to be valid, just for the sake of argument)? We can't just outlaw it and then appoint you, or me (unfortunately!) to be the Decider. It's either legal, or it isn't, or we write some kind of medical standard into the law defining when a woman "needs" an abortion, or is entitled to one.
But what I see happening is either that the legislature is making medical decisions for women across the country sight-unseen, which I am incredibly uncomfortable with, or you have doctors tailoring their medical opinions to "get around" the law - or you have some combination of both scenarios.
What do you think the law should say? It sounds like you're pretty firm on it so I'm assuming you have an idea, or have read/heard an idea somewhere that you think would solve the dilemma (like Mike posted the civil union/marriage solution by...that one guy...can't remember his name!)
I agree with Mike and Rick. Women will terminate pregnancies whether they are legal or not. If they are illegal, it will be much more dangerous for the woman, and will result in deaths and heartache.
Although I am personally opposed to abortion (I was adopted and strongly advocate for adoption), I thing that there are many circumstances in which abortion might be necessary, including preserving the health of the woman. As someone pointed out above, every pregnancy really does endanger the life and health of the woman. That being the case, who am I to tell them that they have to go through such a dangerous experience?
I think it would be morally suspect for me to force my view upon that woman. She should be permitted to make her own decision.
Oh, and Wizzle, I have a post in the works about "Plan B" and the ethics behind it. It should be posted on my blog by Sunday. I'll let you know when I post it!
I would agree that most conservatives make decisions to back a candidate according to the candidates stand on "moral" issues. I feel a person should back the candidate who most resembles their own morals.People shouldn't be voting at all if all they care about is any single issue.
I think the law should say abortion is legal in the case of rape, incest, if the fetus cannot survive, and the health of the mother is in jeopardy. In the case of the health of the mother, doctors would have the power to govern this issue being that this is their profession. Of course their are going to be cases of corruption and deceit as to the governing of the doctors. Such is the same with any governing power. There are corrupt police, judges, politicians and so on, but as a whole, they are effective. Well, maybe not the politicians!:) There will never be a perfect solution as this is a morally and emotionally tied issue. For me it comes down to being held responsible for one actions. Big mistakes have big consequences, otherwise we would never progress. We hold a very sacred and life changing power. Use it wisely.
Jackson, just because people continue to do things that are illegal is not reason enough to make them legal.
Matt, I understand that "just because people continue to do things that are illegal is not reason enough to make them legal." However, when criminalization endangers lives while legalization would not, it is unreasonable to criminalize. A more appropriate solution would be to regulate and oversee. Although in purely subjective moral issues, like this one, I object to the government intruding at all, since the government doesn't have the time, money, or interest to decide what's best for an individual woman's health. It is an issue she should discuss privately with her doctor.
Matt, what if, "My boyfriend and I had sex, but I really didn't want to, but he pressured me into it - I was raped." - Who's to say what rape is and what it isn't. Defining the issue on those lines is akin to saying, Abortion is legal in all cases. What, are we going to go to court everytime someone wants an abortion for a Judge to decide if it was rape or not? By the time a decision gets handed down, it would be in the third trimester.It is impossible to say if something was "rape" or not from the testimony of a fifteen year old girl.
This is what I think, care or not.
Conservative principles applied to this issue would re-itterate much of what Matt has said. But here are some thoughts I haven't seen mentioned.
It seems to me that a complicated problem is going to have a complicated solution. Mother's rights vs fetus rights vs irresponsibility vs gov't interferance and legislation.
I think the most important issue is defining "human being," as Mike pointed out. However, I disagree that it should be defined as being able to support life of its own. Better I think would be to define us as having life when we, our spirits, are given bodies, or when God breathes the breath of life into our bodies and instills a spirit. Obviously, this definition is much more complicated and may be near impossible to determine as we don't know exactly when the spirit enters the body during the pregnancy process. But in an effort to define it in this manner would dictated the murder of a pregnant woman as killing two, and would heavily diminish the selfish abortions that go on.
Basically the idea I cannot reconcile is at what point in termination of a fetus are we sending a spirit back to our Heavenly Father. So that is my first complaint toward common liberal opinions on the issue.
The second issue has been stated, that we have to protect the Mothers from themselves, another thread of thought from under the liberal umbrella. It also applies to other issues for "lefties," like poverty, criminality, healthcare, and education, among others. On this point I would like to see some figures (sorry,) as to how prevelent it is, and what is the motivation. Do we legislate everything people do wrong or irresponsibly? If so we should repeal the repeal of the abolition of alchohol, I am sure that irresponsible alcholism kills more than irresponsible abortions. Also, if we have to protect mothers from themselves do not we also have the obligation to protect the humans inside them, (pending definition,) from the mothers? (P.S. on this note I do not wish to make light of the issue that this happens or be insensitive to it, I just don't think it is a solid argument for pro-choicers, and it bugs me that it is so heavily weighed during arguments on the subject. The argument should be whether abortion is curtailing a life already begun.) I think that if we allow abortion to be an easy road, there will be way too many abortions from young women who just don't want to deal with consequences.
So... I think the solution, if there can be one, needs to be (I can't believe I am going to say this,) heavily legislated...... ouch...... including a definition with more early-term standards, and with many prerequisites to prove the necessity of each case....see but the government sucks at everything, so... I don't know.
I don't think heavy legislation will solve anything. After all, legislation is what gets people up in arms on this issue: they're afraid Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, and legislation always carries that threat. It might be.
This is one of those issues that won't ever get resolved. Period. Not until everyone is of the same conscience. When will that happen? (rhetorical question, please don't answer.)
I hate it when people use the argument that its ok to terminate pregnancies because the fetus can't survive on its own anyway. um, how many FULL TERM babies can survive on their own? Zero would be my answer judging from the number of dead babies found in garbage bags, left under park benches, and abandoned in general instead of left on firehouse or police station doorsteps. And a "fetus" that is not viable on its own is easily kept alive via modern medicine and technology past 28 weeks. That is barely half-way through a pregnancy. Sure, its a rough road, but it has happened for parents who couldn't retain a pregnancy and were desperate to sustain the baby to a point of development where they could take it home.
I'm pretty sure the courts who define murder of a pregnant woman as 2 murders do it based on the modern medicine equivalent: if the hospital could have saved the baby, even if it were on respirators and hooked up to many machines, then the murderer killed 2 persons. But I'm talking from memory of the discussions around Lacy/Conner Peterson time on this issue, not cold facts.
I have a question for those that are pro choice. Are you pro choice on gun control as well? Should we have a right to kill in the instance of self defense?
You say there is no way to prove a rape in some instances. Well, prove to me that self defense is really self defense. There is no absolute. We rely on what is presented as the truth. We have to set standards and then do the best we can to follow them.
Jackson, I've heard that same argument for legalizing drugs. It's just not valid argument. I find it interesting you say legalizing abortion would NOT endanger lives. Uh...what about the baby. Abortion not only endangers the baby, but kills it. You also said this is a "purely subjective moral issue". As far as I know the Declaration of Independence reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Abortion does not give the right to life, in fact, it takes it away from a human that never even had a chance to fight for it.
As I have stated in other posts, this country was founded "one nation under GOD", by righteous, God fearing men. If others don't believe in God, that is fine, I will tolerate them. I WILL NOT ALLOW THE MINORITY TO BECOME THE MAJORITY! We conform to every little compliant as not to offend the minority. I will not stop repeating the Pledge of Allegiance just because of the one Pakistani who feels offended, or the Muslim that is offended by "Merry Christmas". Let me end by quoting one of my favorite bumper stickers, "SUPPORT THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN, LIVE IN THE COUNTRY YOU SUPPORT!"
If you don't like it here, GET OUT!
Matt, personal attacks on people you don't agree with aren't necessary. You can tell me that you don't agree with me, or that you think my reasoning is flawed, or that you don't think I've considered the issue enough. In short, tell me what you think, but don't try to tell me what I am (godless, immoral, whatever).
Also, the words "one nation under God" were not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954--the phrase has nothing to do with the founding of our country... or with the topic of this post.
Jackson, I never said or implied what I stated was an attack on you personally. I only argued that what you SAID was wrong and gave my reasoning for it. As far as the One nation under God statement, You are right, I am wrong. I am just trying to say the founding fathers believed in a higher power, and knew the right to life came from Him, and was not merely a thing that happened. For me, the belief in GOD and my position on abortion go hand in hand.
Hate it when I get busy and miss the comment threads.
A question for the pro-lifers: Why do you think (if you do) that abortion should be permissible in the case of rape or incest? If you really equate the fetus to the human, then it's obviously not the fetus' fault that its life is a product of such horror. Wouldn't you put that person's right to LIVE ahead of the mother's right to not be miserable/ashamed? I don't understand that mindset; it doesn't seem like a consistent argument.
Mike - To quickly answer your question: No, I would not put that person's right to live ahead of the woman's interests in this case. It is terrible enough that this act happened to her, but to have her reminded of it until the day she dies because of the presence of a life would be literally unbearable (I assume). Not to mention having to carry it to term, birth, etc. I couldn't make her do it...
Mike, for me personally I think incest is wrong and the odds of having a child born with many defects which will impair its ability to thrive (ie. having a brain form outside of the skull, 1 leg instead of 2, no liver, neurotic imbalances, etc) are increased enough to not take a chance on carrying to term. But, thats just me.
For rape---thats the choice of the woman. Some women can get raped and give the baby up for adoption. Some actually keep the baby. And others get abortions. But for someone who was raped, they would have to relive the experience every day that they carried the baby. I can't imagine a worse way to torture someone. Ugh. In that case it seems like terminating the pregnancy is the first step to regaining control over their life, emotion, and mental state.
And just for the record---I think that "life" begins when the zygote implants. This is just my opinion. So I'm not drastically opposed to day-after pills like the actual abortion procedure. And full-term abortions are definitely murder in my book.
As I see it, Mike's question needs to be reiterated, because neither of you really answered it - so it's okay to kill an unborn child if there is a possibility of it coming out deformed? We can tell that there will be physical deformities in fetuses before they are born...does that mean that Abortion should be legal in the case of Physical or Mental deformities? And with Rape, how is that okay? It's still a person, in your definition. It's too sticky to take a strictly emotional approach like so many of you have. We can have our emotions, but the practicalities of the matters have to reign supreme. And practically, abortion is the same no matter what the case of conception was. If you think that sometimes the life of the mother is more important, then i remind you of the desperate young woman who would try to do it herself and endanger her life before having to face abusive parents and tell them the truth. It's too sticky to be emotional on. No, no one would ever advocate freedom from consequences - education, and an enlightened way of looking at actions and consequences will do more to stop abortion than making it illegal - and, while we're at it, the same applies to the use of drugs, etc.
Rick, I knew one of you liberal lefties was going to make the deformed argument when I wrote that! What I was actually thinking of were women/girls in the polygamist colonies who are forced to have sex with their fathers, uncles, brothers, etc and the baby comes out like a lump of tissue and blood---hardly recognizeable as a human.
Rick, you don't have kids do you? Maybe after you do you'll rethink the issue...mainly because you'll have watched Aileena carry something for almost a year inside of her, watched her reactions (emotional) as she feels it kicking and moving inside of her, feels another person under her own skin. Now picture a girl who was raped by her father having to go through that same experience, kind of different reaction I think. The whole thing is an emotional experience. Why do you think people get so upset about their leaders voting one way or the other on it and vote for the leader that shares their opinion? You can't get away from the emotion.
Personally, I would carry my child to term even if I knew that it wasn't developing correctly, or if I had been raped. I haven't been raped, but I know people who have and this was personally their reaction as well, so I believe I would react similarly given my beliefs. However, I can't make a girl who was raped do it. Someone having unprotected sex with their boyfriend or sleeping around...yes, I think they should pay the consequences and carry the child to term and give it up for adoption if necessary. But someone who was forced into the sex act---I can't make that decision for them.
Glad I don't dissapoint, Amy :) Hey,so, lets just imagine that we, as a country somehow repeal Roe vs. Wade, and we make abortion illegal. What do we do with the women that will inevitably still have abortions? Do we throw them all in jail? So that our jails are all full of female convicts serving life sentances for the murder of their child? Or, do we just throw the doctors or practicioners in jail - thereby subverthing the "lesson" that the would-be mothers shouldhave learned. Or, do we just fine them. That'd do it! We could fine them alot - heap big ol' fines on the lower class young girls who couldn't have paid for the child had they kept it.
No, I'm not a parent yet, but that is totally an unfair arguement. I have strong desires to be a parent. Let me echo Mike's statement at the very beginning - I am grateful for the adoption program and for anyone who gives their child up for adoption. But, Amy, the fact that I am not a parent doesn't negate my emotional response to abortion - believe me, it's there - I think it's a horrible thing - but not one that we can reasonably legislate.
I am disgusted how the left love to take morality and God out of every issue and devalue the sanctity of human life. There will always be exceptions to every law. There is not reason enough to not have a law just because it would be complicated to legislate.
Regarding the girl that is afraid of abusive parents, she can tell the police, or better yet, know that sex creates babies before you have sex.Take responsibility for your actions!!!!!! The government is not your mommy!
I assume those that favor abortion would also be in favor of what I'll call "Postpartum abortion". You know, those crazy parents on the news who kill their kids because the kids were "too hard to take care of". This too should be up to the parents, right????
Maybe you forgot, but God gave us this "promise land" as long as we are moral and live the commandment. Nothing will sooner lead to the destruction of this country than the removal of God and family values! Not even global warming.
Matt, my friend, you are totally misrepresenting what we on the left of the issue are arguing. I'll assume you're bring sarcastic with your "postpartum abortion" comment. Nobody questions that a baby is a human, but some of us question whether a collection of dependent cells is. Are your sperm human life? I doubt you think so; I suspect you think human life begins somewhere a little further down the line. That's the discussion here, not "taking morality and God out of every issue", or "devaluing the sanctity of human life." At issue is what human life is.
I agree with you that the removal of God and family values will lead to the destruction of our country. That's why I worship God, maintain family values, and encourage others to do the same. But I don't want the government telling me how to do that! The government is not your mommy!
I refer you to my 2nd comment, 2nd paragraph. In other words, whether girls/women abort the baby themselves or not...irrelevant. I think abortion is murder. Others do not.
Matt, your tone is incredibly disrespectful. This is a forum for discussion, not name-calling and down-putting. And for the record, us "lefties" are not one monolithic voting bloc - each of us approach this issue differently. If you take issue with the Democratic Party position on an issue, that's great - just don't assume we all completely agree with it in the first place.
One thing I have never understood about the Republican Party platform is the seeming dichotomy that exists in the government's favored role in the lives of the people. The party professes to favor small government and personal responsibility. Why then, is it appropriate to legislate issues like abortion, which is clearly an issue of personal responsibility?
Alan Colmes (the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes) wrote a book in which he claims to hold the conservative position on abortion - that it's none of the government's business, just like his paycheck.
Of course, one noted economist thinks the reduction of crime in the last couple decades is largely due to at-risk children in unfavorable inner-city living conditions being aborted rather than living a life of crime. ;)
In all seriousness, I do think abortions should be harder to obtain (with mandatory counseling, perhaps?), and I would support legislation that restricts abortions in keeping with the Church's policy. But of course as a realist, I understand that is extremely unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Call me a defeatist (or a Defeatocrat, if you prefer, Matt), but I'd rather cast my votes based on more politically relevant issues.
Hah, I don't know how many people are still reading this thread, but here's a link to my post about Plan B.
I've calmed down, so now I'll comment. I don't mean to put all people to the left in one category as I know there are many different views, I just felt that people were saying if an issue is complicated to legislate, or if it involves emotions, then no law is necessary.
In my opinion the government is supposed to protect our right to life liberty and happiness. My opinion is that any issue involving the safety of a third party deserves legislation. For example, D.U.I. involving drugs or alcohol, secondhand smoke, speed limits, abortion and so on. On the other hand, The government was never intended to regulate issues such as health care (this is what big govrnment is to me). Also, when I hear the left(in general) put issues such as no drilling in Alaska, global warming, etc. above the issues of the sanctity of human life, I strongly disagree.
Mike, I am totally willing to compromise on when life begins. I feel this is a rational way to bring both sides together.
David, I assume you really don't think that abortion is a good way do reduce crime.
didn't notice the wink
Oh, man. thanks for calming down, Matt - but now I'm all riled up! That bit about the third party, and then saying that government was never meant to legislate health care. WOW, I can't even figure out how you see health care as not a third party issue - children?!?! So we are saying - you MUST have the baby, but...we aren't going to make it possible for you to take care of it's health - tuff luck there, guess you shouldn't have gotten pregnant - hope you learned your lesson...I can't even comprehend that mindset. So second hand smoke legislation is not big government, nor is speed limit enforcement, but universal health care is excessive big government? That's like saying that....I don't know, eye liner and lip gloss are essential toiletries, but toilet paper is excessive. I can't keep commenting on this subject.
No, I don't think abortion is a good way to reduce crime - I just enjoy lobbing bombs into crowded markets once in a while, if you know what I mean. :)
By the way, the economist that espouses that theory is Stephen Levitt, of Freakonomics fame.
I'm glad I finally got someone riled up about this topic! Hey, while I'm at it I think I'll make a new slogan, "riled up, ready to go". If I let Obama use it he might be charged with plagiarism by Hillary!
Back to abortion, to answer your question, Yes, you have to have the baby a no I don't have to help pay for it's healthcare. And no, it's not impossible to pay for it's health. Work an extra job, work for a company that provides health care. You made the decision to have unprotected sex, not me. If one cannot afford to provide health care for a child then they shouldn't be having a baby.
Just as with abortion, there will always be exceptions to the rule. I agree that if one has a condition that is not brought on by lack of self discipline there should be assistance or special programs. I refuse to pay into a system that insures smokers, alcoholics, obesity or other self induced conditions (yes, I know not all obesity is self induced, I'm speaking in generalities) as this promotes irresponsibility.
As I said before, the speed of other vehicles, second hand smoke, D.U.I.'s etc. are beyond MY control, whereas the health care of MY children is not. The government provides the right to life, not health and wealth.
One more thought, if you are for socialized health insurance, are you also for socialized car insurance? Why or why not?
I hope this does not sound demeaning, as that is not the point, I am just sharing my ideas.
No, man, I'm not for socialized car insurance - socialized medicine is soemthing I've already talked alot about, but has yet to have it's own thread, so I should probably save that for a future day. suffice it to say, as has already been brought up a few times already on this particular thread, the government has a responsibiligy to see that the sanctity of human life is maintained - when the HMOs and big nasty blood suckers that make up the American health system get their way, there is no way some people can afford healthcare. I've said this before, and I will say it till something changes, but healthcare is a right, not a product. The same does NOT apply to car insurance. infact, not only is automobiles not a right, it's not even right that everyone should have a car - it screws with the environmnet (again, another topic) which is why I don't have a car. Again, those are for different threads. Matt, you seem to have lots of good advice to give everyone who ever makes a mistake, or finds themselves in a less than desireable circumstance (get a second job, guess you should have thought of that when you got pregnant....) The fact of the matter is, it is cold sounding - it sounds like you have no symapthy or empathy for human suffering or the human condition in general. That being said, your severe insistance on the necessity for abolition of abortion is quite a puzzle to me. Why so much empathy for undeveloped fetuses, but so little for human beings? Is it only fetuses which deserve our concern and care? Believe it or not, there are many good people in this country who make the best decisions they know how to, who work hard to be good people and still find themselves in crappy circumstances - many of the vast generalizations you speak in, and have been speaking in have the potential to be quite hurtful to alot of people, so, I would work on curbing that sarcasm and generality with which you categorize people. Everyone is unique, and everyone's circumstances are unique. sometimes those circumstances are the fault of the individual, but, sometimes people just have bad luck. You said earlier, "I am disgusted how the left take morality and God out of every issue and devalue the sanctity of human life." That, however, is exactly how something like this sounds, "I refuse to pay into a system that insures smokers, alcoholics, obesity or other self induced conditions " Here's a thought - addiction is a medical condition - some people are addicts and haven't been raised with the strappingly high moral grounds that you have, so as to know that they should never drink that first sip of alcohol etc. Where is your morality when addressing that question? And taking God out of that - have you heard of WWJD? The golden rule? love your neighbor AS YOURSELF? Refusing to be charitable, even when people have screwed up in their life, or at least refusing to try to understand circumstances is, in my opinion, taking morality and God out of the equation. We're back to the ancient Jewish approach with an eye for an eye. None of this post has been about abortion, which I am still absolutely not swayed on, and neither are you, so I am not going to post any more on this particular thread - social security, alchohol addiction programs, socialized medicine and reducing greenhouse gasses will all have to wait for their own thread.
I'm so sorry about you and Sarah not being able to have a baby.
As far as abortion- I have been called upon to elect government officials that will protect the sanctity of life- To me, this is very clear. I will only vote for those who protect life.
I believe strongly in the woman's right to choose- she chose to have sex. Consequences are not ours to choose. I wonder what the baby's choice would be-no one seems to consider that.
Mark Dixon's comment was put beautifully.
Abortion has undermined our culture and limited our prosperity. Part of government's responsibility is to curb behavior that is destructive to society as a whole. I think that point is evident in many legislative actions taken in our nation's history. Even if you don't believe it should be made illegal, you have to believe the government needs to take steps to derail the abortion train.
I believe that many out there want the government to take a neutral stance on abortion, to leave it up to the individual. The problem is, this is impossible. By making abortion legal, the government in a sense gives its stamp of approval. In the past, the government has taken steps to curb costly behavior (of which smoking is a prime example). As it stands, the government does nothing to stem the tide of abortion. In fact, the government in many instances funds abortive practices! Since 1997, Planned Parenthood(an abortion rights activist group which has performed millions of abortions) has received $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars.
Consider the impact this has on our culture. Legalized abortion has led to an increase in sexual promiscuity. As a result, the number of STD's in our nation have skyrocketed. We spend $17 billion a year to treat STD's (not including secondary problems such as cervical cancer). When you say we need to leave it a choice to an individual, you say we need to abandon a portion of our moral culture which has served us well since the foundation of our nation. I think you're crazy.
In pure dollars, abortion is costing our nation dearly. Since Roe v. Wade, an estimated 44 million abortions have been performed. The population of youth has been diminished in this time by 28%. At the same time, the fertility rate in the US is 2.08 (and steadily declining), just below the replacement figure of 2.1. Life expectancy continues to climb and we are seeing a demographic shift to a much older America. Each child who is aborted is a consumer, producer, and taxpayer who is eliminated from society. The estimated loss in tax revenue alone from these 44 million aborted fetuses is $11.5 trillion. Do you want a solution for our problems with Social Security and Medicare funding, illegal immigration, and STD's from rampant sexual promiscuity? Build a time machine and find a way to reverse Roe v. Wade. To quote Mitt Romney, "Facts are stubborn things."
American society will continue to decline as long as we idly allow people to make choices that are destructive to society. I refuse to continue to pay the consequences of the irresponsible decisions of others. Abortion is a destructive behavior which must be curtailed. The government needs to change its stance and encourage responsible behavior. I'm willing to take a stance and say it should be made illegal.
Chase
Chase...
There is no "abortion train." Abortions have been declining steadily for many years, and abortion rates are now the lowest they have been since 1974.
Furthermore, you have cited no evidence that abortion is the cause of any of the social ills you mentioned. The fact that two events coincide does not necessarily indicate that one caused the other.
Actually... I pretty much disagree with your entire assessment of American society as a whole and your asserted explanations for American decline (by which I mean economic and military decline--I do not believe moral rectitude to be a measurable commodity), so I guess I'll just stop there.
There is a LOT of commentary here. I believe in the right of a baby to be born. I also believe that this, like the death penalty, is not a matter that the federal government should be involved in. I think that abortion should be regulated at the state level. So to me there is no such thing as a pro-life or pro-choice candidate for President or Congress, as these people do not have and ought not to have a direct influence on the abortion issue. I say defer to the states, and I will vote at that level for life over choice (with certain exceptions that, as mentioned above, are unfortunately sometimes unobservable).
Post a Comment