Platform Item 6: The Right to Life
We believe in the sanctity of life and dedicate ourselves to changing the hearts and minds of all those who believe that abortion is an answer to any unplanned pregnancy where it does not threaten the actual life of the mother. We will also spare no effort to see Roe v Wade overturned and the issue of abortion returned to the state legislatures where the issue belongs.
Affirmative Argument
It is difficult to know where to begin with regard to the Right to Life movement that is now more than 37 years old. I will approach it from two perspectives, a constitutional argument and a moral argument.
Constitutional Argument
In 1973, the US Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the US Constitution that simply is not there. There is no law in this land that is more controversial than that which was created by a court, not by an elected body to address a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Nowhere in our Constitution is there any reference to a right to privacy or a right to abortion. A right to privacy can only be inferred and in 1973 one was inferred in order to gain an outcome that was supported by seven members of the Supreme Court. This was not their role as justices. Their role was to evaluate a state law that at the time of their decision prevented one Jane Roe (alias) from obtaining an abortion. The court reacted to the horrible situation that was then all too often seen in that women sought illegal means to terminate a pregnancy they did not want by finding people outside the medical profession who used unsanitary methods that often caused women permanent injury and sometimes death. No one is arguing for a return to the days of the back alley abortion but the purpose of the Supreme Court was not to react to the fairness of the law or to determine what legislatures should create in the form of legislation. Instead they were supposed to react to whether the states have the power to restrict abortion as they did at the time and as they still would were it not for the court's decision in Roe v Wade. When seven members of a nine member court voted to strike down laws that prevented a woman from legally aborting her baby the court essentially disenfranchised every American. It is as a result of this decision that as a nation we have suffered through 37 years of divisiveness and a constant moral and legal battle that will not go away. Everything that can be done needs to be done to strike down Roe v Wade and return the decision as to whether abortions should or should not be legal to the state legislatures that would again have the jurisdiction to determine these issues in accordance with the desires of the majority of their citizens.
One need look no further than this year’s Super Bowl to see the cynicism that has grown out of Roe v Wade between groups unable to compromise because each side advocates a point of view that is at the core of their view of right and wrong. In an advertisement sponsored by Focus on the Family a wonderful story was told, no actually it was only referenced, of a woman who despite the health risk her pregnancy posed to her very life chose to carry and deliver her baby. The mother survived and the baby grew to manhood, Tim Tebow, a young man who is now a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback at the University of Florida, a man of exemplary character and a man who is a positive role model to young men and women all over the world. The story itself is inspirational. It actually tells a story of a choice the mother was free to make but the choice she made somehow threatens those who advocate the woman’s right to abort because this mother's decision was other than the one those women would have preferred she had made. I have to ask the question why? If the movement were truly a “free choice” movement then either outcome would seem equally acceptable to those who advocate from this position. Yet the fanatic feminists pit themselves immediately in opposition to this advertisement being aired on the Super Bowl because it somehow threatened them for those who believe in the sanctity of life to have any voice in the continuing debate. This is the conditioning that is characterized today by the 37 year old Roe v Wade decision and until this is overturned and the issue is brought back to the state legislatures this debate will continue with each side of this issue distrusting the other.
Moral Argument
At one time I believed that because I am a man, I had no right to determine for a woman whether she should carry an unwanted child for nine months. Who eventually changed my mind was Jerry Falwell. I don’t recall the year but he televised a video tape recording of an ultrasound that showed a baby literally fighting for its life as the “doctor” reached for it with his forceps and before my eyes I saw the destruction of a living being, a baby. When I saw this I knew that not only had I been wrong to remain disconnected regarding this issue but I had to speak out and I had to condemn the taking of innocent lives as we have done since 1973.
Since 1973 we have killed more than 40 million babies, many of which at the time of their deaths would have been viable. How can this be justified? My own daughter was born in 1973. She is now 36 years old. I watched her grow into a fine young woman. I watched her become educated, then marry and then become a mother herself. I cannot help but think of the fine young men and women that might have had joyful lives similar to my daughter. I cannot help but think of the waste that this country has allowed as a result of this action. Might we have terminated the life of another Alexander Fleming, a Jonas Salk or a Christiaan Barnard? Might one of those children who was eliminated in 1973 or years subsequent have found an answer to rare cancers, to HIV Aids, to diabetes, SIDS, MS or MD? Tragically we will never know what might have been.
We have eliminated 40 million taxpayers or potential taxpayers just at the time when those taxpayers might benefit the mothers who took their lives by contributing to entitlement programs that will forever miss their contributions. When a population fails to regenerate itself it begins to die.
The Roe v Wade decision has also resulted in an unhealthy parsing of our language. As a means to justify the killing of these babies advocates of abortion have chosen another word, fetus, as a means to identify the baby in the womb. It is as though the simple renaming of the baby as a fetus will allow them to ignore that this is a developing human being inside the womb whose life they desire to take to preserve the lifestyle of an independent but inconvenienced woman. Well, a fetus is a baby. As science continues to eliminate the mystery of human life it provides testimony to the life forming in the mother's womb. With each scientific advance we can see human characteristics forming much earlier in the gestation period. We know the baby as it grows is dependent upon the mother for its life but this does not make it any less a baby and it certainly cannot be considered as less by referring to it as a fetus as though it is some disconnected tissue that won't represent life until its delivery. To say a fetus is not a baby is to say a young boy is not yet a male or a young girl is not yet a female. These are all simply developmental stages of life.
I have no idea as to the emotional toll an unwanted pregnancy can take on a woman and I will admit that I have no good answer to the question of a pregnancy that is the result of incest or rape. My purpose isn’t to have the answer. My purpose is to return the debate to where it belongs, to state legislatures and ask those who represent our citizens at the state level to wrestle with these issues and come to answers as our elected representatives. Let advocates for and against the issue of abortion present their cases and let the legislatures decide what is best for their states. I will remain on the side that argues to protect the life of these unborn babies.
As an MD, I understand and agree with you that a child nowadays may be aborted who is "viable". But, as you mentioned in your article, this is a very controversial issue. Unfortunately, it is one that divides a great number of people and unfortunately paints those who are vehemently "pro-life" as "radical" or "religious", etc. I feel that it is far more divisive and exclusionary for any movement or political party or movement to take up this issue as part of its platform. I believe that the Tea party movement may be the best thing that has come along yet, but it is precisely these types of divisive issues, that do not involve governance or governing a country like a well-run corporation (that allows people to thrive and therefore make that "choice" in a way that is more acceptable to the pro-life groups) that limit acceptance of such movements as the Tea party. We MUST be pragmatic and understand that the younger crowd is less likely to be religious or necessarily anti-abortion. Most people would say that they would desire any pregnancy to go forward, but this is a choice..at least for now. Having that choice divvied up and changed state by state would indeed lead to the back ally abortions of the past. I would encourage any Tea party enthusiast to feel free to state their wishes would be for a pregnant woman to carry on..., but to have the overturning of Roe vs wade as part of a "platform" reduces the draw of that platform, and weakens the movement. Lets get on first with good governance of the key aspects of govt, then maybe more births will be allowed to carry on....
Reply to this
Please, Tea Partiers... Leave abortion out of your platform. It would draw so many more independent, smart women to support your movement. Here is an opportunity to separate religion and politics, which is part of our constitution.
Reply to this
Holly,
Please read the 1st Amendment. There is no separation of religon from politics in our Constitution. There is only the provision that the federal government may not restrict the rights of persons to worship as they please and that the federal government may not establish a national church.
Reply to this
As I read it, it says nothing about the government establishing a religion or not. It says that govermnent shall make no law [[[[[respecting]]]] the establishment of religion or impeding its practice. By including christian celebrations (such as the co-opted winter solstice celebration and spring equinox celebrations) in government sponsored displays or by making abortion illegal because it violates a mythological god's laws, you are violating the first amendment. You are free to practice whatever misguided belief you like and to even believe that donkeys and snakes talk, that you can get 2 (or 7 depending on the verse) of every animal on a boat, that god spoke into the dirt and you got here or whatever other nonsense you want to believe. I am free to take a more scientific approach. We together are free to debate this and use these conclusions as we see fit as long as we do not violate each others' rights (by doing things like killing abortion doctors or trying to force children to learn about thoroughly debunked "ID"). Neither of us is (supposed) to be worried that the others' position will be represented or encouraged by our government. Just as you would not tolerate a winter-solstice tree placed by government, I should not have to tolerate your stories of people living in whales being encouraged by government.
Reply to this
Yes, you are right, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment..... Odd that you would interpret this as a necessity for government to disrespect religion when the remainder of that sentence states ..... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Do you believe that it would make sense for an amendment to begin by encouraging the government to not respect religion and then complete it by indicating government may not interfere with anyone's right to exercise freedom of the religion they choose? The remainder of that amendment speaks to other freedoms of speech, of the press and the right of assembly. Yet in the midst of all these freedoms you read the word "respecting" to imply that government should not respect religion. Absurd. Your interpretation is complete nonsense.
I am not familiar at all with celebrations of the winter solstice or the spring equinox. I am certainly familiar with Christmas and Easter, both national holidays. Do you take Christmas off with pay? How did the Christmas and Easter holidays come to be celebrated in this country? Was it because of the relationship of the sun to the earth or was it a celebration of the birth of Christ and the recognition of his ultimate sacrifice?
But do tell us how you are hurt by others who choose to believe something you do not believe? I don't recall an instant where I was disrespectful of you for your chosen atheist beliefs. I have instead challenged your conclusions and I have argued that our mores indeed were the result of the teachings of the churches. This is a fact. You on the other hand cannot seem to complete a paragraph without mocking others for their beliefs and without making disrespectful statements regarding the teachings of Christianity. Why do you succumb to such sophomoric temptations? Are you this insecure in your own thoughts?
Reply to this
BTW, I'm not sure where I disrespected your religion? I simply gave examples where an individual's practice of religion would violate another's rights. The fact that these things really have happened under Christian dogma (burning of libraries, killing of doctors, stoning of people, et al) is not me attacking your faith. This is simply me pointing out some of the things your faith has done and that the bible encourages. No need to feel attacked. How is one to question a belief system if they think every question and/or support for why they are questioning is an attack on them personally?
Reply to this
You know nothing about my faith and I have purposely kept my faith hidden. Your disrespect is demonstrated by comparing religion to mythology and your quotations of Biblical verse that you portend is irrational. It is insulting and terribly disrespectful to those of faith.
I know of no examples in this country where children or even their parents are stoned, libraries burned, etc. If you have examples of this, present them but let's keep your examples in contemporary America. Let's not go back to the Salem witch hunts or things earlier because they have no bearing in today's America and we are discussing current affairs. Let's also not quote the idiot who killed the doctor at the abortion clinic because the act of one is not proof of anything. His action was not endorsed by anyone who is rational and he was punished for his transgression. Give me an example where mobs of people kill doctors, burn libraries or stone those they do not agree with.
Reply to this
This is strange. So, I quote the bible and that's offensive? It's YOUR bible! It says what it says. Just because modern Christians (largely) ignore it has no bearing on whether it is part of the "moral code" or not. You are the one that said our morality comes from Christianity (along with other jewels such as "evolution is not science"). If you're going to make that claim, then please tell me what parts of our moral code come from the bible and if our moral code does in fact come from it, why it is that we don't adopt all (or even most) of it.
Reply to this
I have said that the Theory of Evolution is not 'proven' science. I have already told you all that should be necessary. Common law and consequently our Constitution and our foundation for law are predicated upon religious tenets and the teachings of the church for centuries.
You are quoting parts of the Bible to belittle it. Once again, you do not know that it is my Bible. I have not told you my religion and you have no idea whether I am a Christian or not. The point I have been trying to make from the beginning is that whether or not you agree with religious people or their values there is no reason for you to treat them with such disrespect.
You say you are a moral person. I am merely asking that you prove it. Thus far you have only been a sophomoric bore.
Reply to this
This is the number one reason why I'm not a republican and will enjoy the next beating republican's take (and they will take one again and it will be over their moralizing). Study some embryology. You are not taking a person's life with abortion any more than you are doing so when you masturbate (assuming you're a male) or have sex with a condom or use birth-control or when a female body rejects a pregnancy (as over half end in failure).
Reply to this
Patriot, it's hard to begin. No offense, but your rebuttal does not make sense.
You agree that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and then you go on to argue for your specific religion to be recognized by government. I'll just assert my position again: our government should not recognize your religion any more than it should recognize any of the 10,000 other religions that came before it. You would be offended if the government put up a winter solstice tree, I'm offended that they put up religious symbols. Let's just make us both happy and leave religion out of government. Practice your free exercise without the aid of government.
Christmas was not celebrated by Christians until about the 4th century. It was previously the winter solstice celebration but Catholics made it their own and just proclaimed it to be Jesus' birth date. No, I don't celebrate because a mythological man-god was born (in the same manner as Mithra and many gods before him). Although, I acknowledge that some celebrate that belief. People celebrate the spring equinox under similar circumstances (a holiday that belonged to the pagans). Many gods [[prior to]] your Jesus lived his same life and were the reason for these celebrations. Therefore, are you even sure which god you celebrate these "paid days off" for? Since I own my companies, no, I do not get paid.
Where I find the belief in myths harmful include: human relations, human mental health, the spreading of ignorance, the defunct morality in the faith. Stone your misbehaving children? Murder your child to prove you love god? Give your daughter away to be sexually abused? All of this and so much more is found in the bible which makes me snicker when believers ask (all incredulous), "Where do you get your morality from?". More than anything else, it is the spreading of ignorance that bugs me most though. You have people like Ben Stein (as if) arguing for the teaching of already debunked ID in government schools. These are people who don't want you to acknowledge evolution because it's "only a theory". Except that it's one that has empirical support about equal to the empirical support for gravity (which is also "only a theory"). If we followed Christian morality, we would not have vaccines, space exploration, the internet or intelligence. And, please don't think I'm trying to attack you. I sincerely was a fundamentalist Christian at one point but I read the bible, compared it to reality, asked myself if I would believe these claims made by any other source and then started learning. I was on the side that would have tried to find loop-holes in science to explain away my faith and would have forgiven my religion for having burned scientists at the stake in generations past. I do understand where you are coming from. But, I also understand that religion in general hurts us as a species. Its purpose is passed. Whether you agree with that or not, religion has no place in shaping public policy.
Reply to this
Where in my argument did you see me argue for my religion? I have not yet mentioned my religion. My comments regarding your disrespect were with regard to any religion, not to my religion. I haven't even mentioned my religion and I won't. My perspective is purely from a Constitutional point of view and my personal religion is of no consequence. Your pointed statements toward mythology are really good examples of your disrespect for any person of faith. In this rebuttal you refer to the Christian God as a mythological man-god and you asked in another post where you have been disrespectful toward people's religions? Amazing!!!
I indicated that both Christmas and Easter are National Holidays and I asked whether you took Christmas off with pay. I didn't ask whether you celebrated the holiday or not. Given that the nation was born in the 18th Century and Europeans didn't land on this continent and establish communities until the 16th Century, of what relevance to this conversation is the information regarding Christian celebrations not having begun until the 4th Century?
Nowhere in my arguments or my rebuttals is there any request that this government respect the establishment of a religion. To the contrary, I have argued against that from a Constitutional point of view. I think that religions should be respected but this is an entirely different definition of the word. Do you understand that people can respectful of other people and their religious beliefs without respecting the establishment of a religion? There is a difference. Why is this so difficult for you? To recognize a religion is not to endorse a religion and no one has asked that religion be a part of government. The Constitution only instructs that government must not interfere with religious practice and must not respect the establishment of one religion over another.
People bring their faith and the teachings of their church to the voting booth. How could they possibly leave this behind? You obviously cannot leave your disdain for religion behind. Would you deny the vote to people of faith for fear that they would bring their moral attitudes to the voting booth? If so why? They don't deny the same to you. If you don't leave your religion behind and yes, atheism when practiced with the zeal you exhibit, is an ugly version of the religions you protest, how can you possibly expect persons of faith to not judge cultural issues from the perspective of their religious heritage?
I also have not asked that government aid religion. If I have, tell me where. I have stated quite emphatically that the 1st Amendment is to prevent the establishment of a religion and to not interfere in other people's religious worship. Naturally if a religion comes in conflict with law then there is a problem that must be resolved but we haven't talked about that, not at all.
It has been so long since I stoned a child that I can't remember. Were I to select between a good Christian and you as my arbiter to create public policy, I would have no comfort in the freedoms you would deny persons with whom you disagree. I would select the Christian. I would not expect his or her Christian faith to interfere with my life and as such I would certainly prefer their perspective to yours. My fear is that you would seriously deny others the ability to celebrate their religious culture as you have already indicated with your references to Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox. This absurdity would certainly deprive me of liberty as well. What you and others who argue from this perspective have failed to do is to explain how the celebration of a religious holiday adversely effects you. I am not black but I respect Martin Luther King's birthday. It causes me no harm that others treat the holiday with greater respect than I do. I have never been a member of a labor union and I am no friend to organized labor but their celebration of Labor Day does me no harm and I respect their day of celebration. You and others fail to explain how the existence of religion as a component to how people vote does you harm unless you dislike the moral boundaries that religion teaches and you would prefer to have no boundaries within our laws that involve moral questions. Is this your problem?
Reply to this
Your claims are all over the place:
GHWB is one prominent politician (president even) who said that atheists should not be considered citizens.
By pointing out the mythology surrounding faith I would deny people the chance to believe whatever non-sense they like according to you? On the other hand, Christians want me to recognize god on money and in secular symbols and in the public square and they want to force their religion on the public through teaching creationism (in the form of ID), attacking knowledge and discovery and having prayer in government schools yet I'M the one who is asserting his will on others? What?
Look, you don't have to point our your religion. Saying things like "evolution is not science" is plenty to reveal where you are coming from. You are incorrect, BTW, evolution is not only science, it's very good science with a lot of evidence to support it.
I don't care if you take offense at my pointing out the craziness of people believing in man-gods. You would not be offended if I made such a statement aimed at a modern people believing in say Herakles. But, if it is Jesus, that's off limits. To me, it's just as bizarre to believe either of them. I say that having been a believer myself. If you are offended with the verse of the bible, take it up with the people who wrote it. If you are offended with me pointing out the harm religion has done, take it up with history (and modern day zealots).
The anti-abortion stance is fueled by religious convictions. The argument Christians use to support their position is the bible - 'I knew you in the womb'. There's one example of religion attempting to shape policy. I've given a number of others where religion rears its head in our government and does not favor the free practice of all religions but rather tries to assert the will of the majority's religious views.
Reply to this
Say something relevant Al. Of what matter is it that Bush 41 said anything related to what you accuse him of? Deal with the issues at hand. I don't ask that you recognize anything. If you do not want to recognize God on our currency, don't use it. There is no harm in telling students that there are competing points of view. Creationism relies upon faith, as does Darwin. Certainly there may be some evidence on the theory of evolution but this does not make it proven science. It is one of those things not capable of proof and as such should not be presented as proven science in the classroom any more than creationism should be presented as proven science.
Abortion is against the moral code of most religious people, certainly this is true. But there is a whole lot of science to suggest that it is not a basketball growing in the womb of the mother. It has a heartbeat, at certain periods of gestation you begin to witness through ultrasound techniques that a head has formed, appendages are formed, the sex becomes known, etc. Science does say this is a developing human being in the womb of the mother and it does not deserve to be summarily dismissed as a blob of tissue or just a fetus. It is a baby.
I don't deny that religious people are attempting to shape policy by their votes but I have asked you countless times why they shouldn't be allowed to do this. Those of faith have every much right to go to the ballot box as you and when they do there is no reason for them to leave their religious values behind. You don't leave your atheism behind. From your comments I would be willing to bet you take your atheism into every conversation you have.
Tremendous harm has been caused through the centuries not by religion alone but by the intolerance that is displayed because people cannot accept or respect the right of others to believe in another God. Your religion is atheism and I have never witnessed a more disgraceful exhibit of religious intolerance than what you display in your arguments. I do not know what has caused you to hate so many of your fellow citizens but before you begin sniping at Jews or Christians because they have values that crimp your style, look at that ugly person in the mirror and ask how you might improve Al.
Reply to this
You believe that Roe vs. Wade should be repealed and that each state should decide the laws regarding abortion, if I read correctly. Why is it that the legality of any other medical procedure is not voted on by the state you live in, if you want to get your knee operated on, or have a hysterectomy, or get prescribed birth control pills or pills for high cholesterol, this is a medical decision that is no one elses business. And yet the decision to have a medical procedure done to her own body is supposed to be decided by the government in this case? You also said that you did not support returning to the days of "back alley abortions," but how is that possible if women don't have the right to make that decision with their doctor in some states?
Reply to this
Yes, that is right, I believe that Roe v Wade must be overturned because it was bad Constitutional law. The issue of abortion must be dealt with by each of the 50 state legislatures where it should have been settled in the first place.
"Why is it that the legality of any other medical procedure is not voted on by the state...."? Maybe because the surgery on a knee doesn't involve anyone's death. Could that be it? Think through your questions before you ask them. This one was simply ridiculous.
Yes I would prefer that we not go back to the days of back alley abortions. I would like to think that once states decide this issue that women would obey the law. Is this unreasonable?
Reply to this
Because knee surgery doesn't involve anyone's death? If we are going to define abortion as killing a life, then why would it be legal in any state? It would be classified as murder. There would be no reason to make it up to the states. If the fetus is not considered a separate "life" at that point then it isn't murder and it should be treated as any other medical procedure. How is that ridiculous?
You already acknowledged the fact that there were illegal back alley abortions before Roe vs. Wade, so why would things be any different if abortion became illegal again? Women would still seek out illegal abortions for the same desperate reasons as they did before.
Reply to this
ST,
In my opinion it shouldn't be legal in any state but it remains up to the states to legislate such things. As a matter of fact it was illegal in all states until the Supreme Court overstepped their boundaries and found a Constitutional right to an abortion. It was considered murder.
Things may not be different with regard to back alley abortions if they were made illegal again but this is no reason to refuse to pass legislation that is morally and legally proper. I would hope they wouldn't but we both know that some probably would but at least the next forty years would not equate to forty million more babies slaughtered in the womb. Legislators should never refuse to legislate laws because some would disobey those laws. By your argument why do we have laws against speeding or jay walking? We both know that the highway is full of autos traveling more than the posted limit and we know that all people don't use the crosswalk with the light.
Reply to this
If a man wanted to do something with his body, there would absolutely be no debate about it. There is a clear inequality in our society, and by supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade you are simply contributing to it. I know that men like you must have issues with the fact that a fetus in a woman's body is something about a woman they can't control, so you try to exert control by proposing something as silly a hurtling our country back to the age of back-ally abortions. Men will make the argument that the reason this "woman's issue" is debated is because the fetus' "ownership" (again with the need for men like you to own and control things) is partially the man's, but unfortunately for you, the woman just so happens to be the one who carries the fetus, and to which the fetus is attached. Whine about the morality all you want, but I'm sorry, it's not something you have any control over.
Reply to this
There certainly is a clear inequality but it is broader than our society. It is called biology.
Fact: Women are born with a uterus and men are not.
Life is not always fair and this is demonstrated most clearly by the fact that men need not go through the birthing process and women are the only ones who can. I understand you believe you are only doing something freely with your own body and I also understand that you and others refuse to hear the argument that it is not only your body once you are pregnant. There are two bodies, two lives.
I do not think it "fair" for a woman to terminate other human life as a matter of choice or convenience. There is nothing about this that begs any issue of "ownership". In my opinion, the baby growing in a woman's uterus should have the same unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as his or her mother.
Who told you life was always fair?
Reply to this
You just said you don't think it's "fair" for a woman to be able to terminate a life, and then said "Who told you life was always fair?"
Lol, maybe you should answer your own question!
Reply to this
No, I don't believe it is "fair" to a baby for a woman to be able to terminate his / her life as a matter of convenience. But that is an issue a society can do something about. The fairness the original comment referred to was essentially that women have a uterus and thus must carry the baby while men are not saddled with that responsibility. Life is not fair. There is nothing she can do about that biological difference. But laws that allow a woman to take the life of an unwanted baby we can do something about. There is not a thing contradictory or funny about that statement. Nothing at all.
Reply to this
The comment I was referring to explained that because the woman carries the fetus, she gets to make the decision while a man does not. This is an inequality in society and there is nothing we can do about it, so yes, "life is not fair." You cannot say that "life is not fair" because men and women are different and there's nothing we can do about it, and then turn around and say we can do something about the unfairness of women being able to choose abortion. Yes there are differences between men and women we can't change, but women can choose what to do with their bodies, they have been using modern birth control for decades and primitive nmethods for thousands of years. Women CAN make the choice to use birth control or have an abortion, maybe you don't like it and maybe it isn't fair, but it isn't going to change. If babies grew in an incubator it wouldn't be an issue, but they grow in a woman's body, and she is a person who has already been BORN and has rights to make decisions about her own life and whether she wants to be pregnant or not.
Reply to this
I certainly can say that we can do something about the wanton slaughter of millions of babies every year and yes, it will someday change. More than half of the nation considers themselves pro-life today and as soon as we get a Supreme Court willing to reverse Roe v Wade on the merits of the case the sooner this can be placed back where the issue belongs, on the state legislatures.
Life has inequalities. There is no denying that. The biology of men and women cannot be reversed because a woman would rather have the freedom of a man from pregnancy. There is nothing we can do about that nor should we want to try. On the other hand the ability to elect to abort a pregnancy is a personal decision, not a biological reality. This we can do something about and in the interest of humanity, the sooner the better.
I have no issue with birth control. Neither does anyone else despite what the looney left would have you believe. It is not even an issue. But no, the woman has no right to decide whether to carry a baby full term or not. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion and the Roe v Wade decision does not change that fact. If you see someplace in the Constitution where it says women have a right to abort a child, point it out. It isn't there. The relevance that the mother was already born only bears testimony to the fact that her mother was of higher moral character than the woman who would instead choose to abort her own child. Take a step back and ask yourself whether you would have supported your own mother making that same decision.
Reply to this