Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Supreme court ruling
I have no choice after reading the ruling and many of the facts surrounding it to be puzzled. The Supreme Court voted this week to ban so-called (named so by it’s opponents) partial-birth abortions, despite the fact that abortions, though remaining a controversial topic, are legal. In this country, it is estimated 1.3 million abortions take place annually, while only a small portion of these are “partial-birth”. However, the details of this procedure are particularly gruesome. It entails a fetus being removed from its’ mother until only its’ head remains inside, then a hole is made in the head of the fetus, followed by a suction device which is inserted to suck out the brain, causing it’s head to collapse. No, really. It took me about 20 minutes to type that sentence, and I am not sure when I will be able to sleep again. That being said, it is still difficult to comprehend the decision, especially when one looks at the procedure of a more conventional abortion, which involves the entire fetus being suctioned out of the mother, thus suffocating. Both of these are so horrific that one wonders how many involved in this debate actually know and understand the details of either of these procedures. However, if one is legal, how can the other not be? Granted, typical abortions happen on or about the ninth week, while “partial–birth” ones are much later. But if we have already played the role of God and decided that a fetus having not been born is not yet worth being considered a “human” (and thus making it’s death murder), how can we decide one is so wrong while the other is perfectly acceptable? Both of these procedures are cringe-inducing nightmares, but now we are deciding between the lesser of two evils? Interestingly, the decision included 2 pages on the prospect of an abortion patient realizing later the details of this “partial-birth” procedure and feeling regret. So why is disclosure not the bigger issue here as opposed to prohibition? I have never been a proponent of abortion, and would never be in favor of having one if included in any decicion making process. However, the conclusions that others make is their business, and is to be taken up with their conscience. But now we have decision handed down that takes the authority out of the hands of God or an individual and puts it squarely in the hands of 9 people I have never met and hardly know. If abortion is legal, then it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s not. We can debate that issue all day. But don’t split hairs, especially when the way they are split are not based on any laws but rather political affiliations. If the conservatives believe it is wrong, based for the most part on religious reasons, should they not leave it up to God to judge our decisions? What is it about religious people that they feel so compelled to make, not only personal decisions, but to shove those decisions down everyone else’s throat as well? The decisions we make should have nothing to do with government so long as the health and safety of others is not impacted. So go worry about a war, handle the taxes, and pave the roads. No one needs you to make up their mind for them. In the off chance we want your opinion, we’ll ask.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I wouldn't really view the ruling as trying to make one type out to be the lesser of two evils, but rather the most recent in a series of attempts for the courts to make a ruling that errs on the side of caution.
Consider what a fetus is - clearly of the human species, and clearly with its own DNA it is a unique human individual. Allowing for its death is only possible when you deny it some kind of nebulous quality like "personhood" that denotes it's place in the "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" context. We don't really have a set definition of this "personhood" quality and many people disagree about its origins. But we can all agree that a woman is a person, therefore abortion legality reflects the court's decision to err on the side of caution in the hostile relationship between the mother and the fetus she wishes to abort. That is to say, accepting the principle that people have the right to be respected in a certain way as layed out in the Declaration of Independance means everyone can agree the needs of the mother deserve respect, but this principle does not have a direct bearing on the needs of the fetus, because there is no universal consensus on how to regard it.
Thus, with abortion being legal, the courts have proclaimed to us that the fetus is not to be considered in the same light as the mother. [With certain caveats]
Now, this partial-birth abortion technique is particularly gruesome. And since the fetus IS what is IS whether the courts understand it or not, the fact of the matter is, the courts MIGHT be wrong. Just because we don't know what the nature of the fetus is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Thus, in an effort to cover all the bases, they have banned partial birth abortions because even though they have determined that the unique human life is not worthy of full legal protection while unborn, there ARE circumstances under which their certainty on that issue is not great enough to allow the fetus to be treated without the least bit of respect whatsoever. Hence, they err on the side of caution.
Abortion is a choice. Whether it's a good choice or a bad one is in the eye of the beholder.
One person is driving in their car with an "Abortion is murder" bumper sticker on the back while the lady driving behind him is thinking, "You don't understand the circumstances surrounding my decision".
Anti-abortion activists would say that there is no such thing as justifiable abortion. Their belief that abortion is murder is just that and they will clearly not be swayed, most likely because they do not open their ears and listen.
I know someone that had an abortion in her 8th month of pregnancy. Her baby had water on the brain and a spinal disease. She went through months of treatments to try and save her baby, but there was nothing more that could be done. The child would never walk, never talk, never do anything. It would live in a bed on feeding tubes and life support forever. It would need care 24 hours a day for its entire life. It would cost so much money for the machines to keep it alive, and it would take all of her time away from the two healthy children she already had. She chose to get the abortion.
While at the abortion clinic, she met many other women getting these late-term abortions. Some of their stories were even more horrifying than her own.
One baby had one eye in the middle of its head, a mouth that went up-and-down, rather than side-to-side, and its hands and feet were on backwards. Another lady was carrying a torso with no extremeties.
All of these babies were severely deformed or diseased. Most of them would not have survived long anyway.
So when you consider late-term abortion remember this: These are not people that waited until the last minute to decide that they didn't want to keep their baby. These are people that are carrying monsters inside them.
Also remember: It has absolutely no effect on your life if someone else gets an abortion. Go live your own life and leave everyone else's decisions up to them.
I walked off the bus on Michigan Avenue the other day, and, to my chagrin, I was confronted with a series of signs/protests that stretched several blocks.
To whom were these families and young adults protesting? To the anti-lifers out there, of course! Every twenty steps or so I would run into a mother with her two young children holding an enormous sign with a picture of a partial-birth aborted fetus. "Abortion is Murder" is all they cared to explain.
On the opposite side of the coin: I have been harangued at various social gatherings by a hipster member of the intelligentsia (or whomever), proclaiming that every American ideal is tossed aside by those anti-choicers. "Those pro-life a**holes out there don't know...(insert insult here)."
My point here is that what needs to happen in this country is a transparent discussion between both sides. We should, of course, as alexis says: "live your [our] own life and leave everyone else's decisions up to them." But while we're at it, we might as well understand how each other feels and thinks.
The Supreme Court nodded to the right with their partial-birth ruling. The complexity of the matter illuminates the concept that it may be best for the American judiciary or politik to get the hell out of a woman's body. There's a reason why there remains a nebulous line between illegal and legal abortions: The subject should never have been brought to a legal table.
On a different note, it will be unbelievably difficult to de-galvanize our partisan country; abortion lends itself so easily to a moral highground. It can be used as the most awesome barometer of political or religious affiliation. "Are you willing to murder someone for your own benefit." Or, "Are you willing to project your beliefs into another's womb?"
It is my opinion that we are all pro-life. We all enjoy life, would rather have life than death, and admire the miracle that is childbirth. But what makes most sense to me, echoing the words of alexis, is to avoid zealousness and promote open discussion and a respect for an individual's beliefs.
Alexis is right about the genesis of some abortions but not mentioned something modern people accustomed to distributing their pain to others rarely ever consider: suffering a personal (or group) tragedy is never sufficient justification for transferring that pain to someone else. The moral "dilemma" of stealing a loaf of bread (or jar of medicine) to feed your hungry family is not a dilemma because the moral answer is always that both are wrong: the arguments for stealing are for justification of your theft--why you should not be punished, not why stealing under these circumstances is not morally wrong. Arguments for abortion based on alleviating a personal tragedy do not support the assertion that abortion is moral, they support the assertion that abortion is justified.
Justification is a relative thing. You would probably agree that it is much easier to justify a moral wrong if the action is a lesser wrong than the evil suffered. In the above example of stealing some bread to save your starving family, the justification stands on the price of the bread--it is worth relatively little compared to the lives of your family. It isn't like you are stealing a whole truck full of food; it's just a loaf. What if the wrong you seek to justify is equal to the wrong suffered? Such justifications generally don't hold up: even in common law you cannot take someone else's life to save your own (they are both equal). (Aside: there are some special cases for 'equality of life,' mothers are generally considered more valuable than children, men are relatively expendable compared to women--these are based on the natural circumstance of who is best able to replace the lost population.) So Alexis implicitly adds one more assumption to her justification for abortion: the life of the baby (eight months old, in this case) is worth less than the stress on the mother who had two other children.
Careful, now. As soon as I mentioned "relativity" you might have been inclined to start a sorites argument. Most people call this kind of argument a "slippery slope" argument; the classic example being a pile of sand. You have a pile of sand; take a grain away and it is still a pile of sand; continue taking away grains and each time ask whether it is still a "pile of sand"; in the end you have only one grain left. Is it still a "pile" of sand? The problem with a sorites argument is where the distinction is made--where you draw the line. Alexis implicitly draws the line at birth, apparently, because eight months is pretty far along (premature babies may survive being born earlier, though that is very rare). I am trying to answer Alexis and Alex, and keep things short, so I must separate the arguments for justification and when human life begins: for the remainder of this argument I assume human life begins at conception because any demarcation between conception and birth may slide forward or backward depending on the current scientific knowledge and because a human life is precious because it is human, not because it is sentient.
You probably already got ahead of me and said something like, "well, of course you don't think abortion is justified if you think it is a human life; you are one of those abortion-is-murder people." Well, yes and no. Yes: I believe abortion is murder. No: the thesis of my argument here is not that abortion is murder and that Alexis is wrong. I began this comment with the observation that neither Alexis nor Alex considered the problem of tragedy.
Now a tragedy may be a caused by a wrong but it may also be caused by happenstance, such as a natural disaster. I doubt you would argue that natural disasters are "evil," unless there is a being with free will capable of causing them--otherwise, they just are. So some justifications for abortion, those to abort a baby that will clearly be handicapped, deformed or ill for its entire life, are based on justifying a moral wrong to alleviate something that is not wrong: a natural disaster. Many people are so accustomed to having insurance, which distributes the cost of your car accident, house fire, hospital stay or what-not onto other people, that they take it is a matter of course that you are justified in distributing your pain onto others. You are, but only in the social compact (that is partly what societies are for). Another common justification for abortion rests on a wrong: a woman was raped and became pregnant as a result--this will completely change her life if she keeps the baby and upend a year or more if she puts it up for adoption. The justification is that this baby is the result of a wrong: a rape. In that case, if you do not consider whether the pregnancy has any value as a human (yet), and if you assume that the rape and the pregnancy are the same wrong, the justification succeeds because the action justified is in response to a wrong and the action itself is a lesser evil--removing something that might become human later.
My central argument here is not that abortion is wrong but that the Justification is wrong. Pregnancy is a "natural" disaster--a personal tragedy--if you would consider it a disaster at all. The rape scenario is flawed because the rape was wrong but the pregnancy is not a "wrong"; it is merely a side-effect of the rape. In other words, even if you consider a pregnancy (fetus or otherwise) to be of little value, it is only justifiable in very special circumstances such as saving the life of the mother (mothers are worth more than unborn children, as the aside above). The wrong you do is only justifiable if it is a lesser wrong than the wrong you suffered and if it is in response to a wrong suffered. There may be other exceptions (you cannot justify a wrong you commit if your pain is already covered under some social contract--you cannot justify vigilantism) but for the sake of brevity I will end here: the argument Alexis made was an argument for justifying abortion and it fails because abortion pregnancy is at worst a natural tragedy and a relatively minor inconvenience. Consider that the woman Alexis mentioned would have had State aide for her disabled child and the woman in the rape scenario could always give her baby up for adoption: nine months is not much to ask. Compare nine months or a year to a 60 or 70-year old life.
Whenever the topic of abortion presents itself, the "transparent discussion between both sides" that seeder suggests rages in my head.
One of the sides is the part of me that thinks abortion is the ultimate tragedy: the irreparable severance of the mother/child bond.
The other side is the part of me that knows that not all women want or are able to be mothers, even if they're pregnant.
That's about as deep as I can go on the subject. Because the debate in my head could rage on forever, I have to shut it down almost as soon as it begins.
I don't want to have an abortion, and therefore I won't. Friends' and family members' abortions have saddened me, but I respect that theirs were the right choices for them and I do not judge them for that.
In a perfect world this debate would be unnecessary. But our world ain't perfect.
The Supreme court ruling has generated a variety of mixed reaction with their ruling on partial birth abortions. Conservatives for the most part view this ruling as a minor victory. I don't necessarily agree. I shall highlight three major problem areas with the Supreme Court ruling. First, my own take on abortion from a spiritual perspective. Second the Supreme court with respect to historical reference to the founding fathers. Third, a minor commentary on Conservatives and religion.
Abortion and Women.
I'll begin with my assessment of abortion. I have been a spiritual-minded individual all my life. Although I am not Christian, I subscribe to an alternative spirituality. Nonetheless I view abortion as a double-edged sword. Passionate views are espoused from both sides of the aisle. My belief is not unlike the Christian view that life is sacred, and that the beginning of a life is marked by the act of conception, that is, when conception is the fertilization of an egg and sperm. It is important that the distinction be made, since conception does not always result in fertilization. Partial birth abortions are typically done sometime after a woman becomes aware that she is pregnant. Between fertilization and the time that many women choose to have an abortion, the fetus has had time to develop and grow as much as it can. My viewpoint by now is clear, that by terminating such a life, that I view abortion as murder.
However, that being said, I am not very likely to wave a banner in the faces of those who hold opposing viewpoints. If it were a question for me, I know where I stand. When it is a question for another woman, I have every right to debate and add my two cents, but no right to force someone else to believe as I do. In addition, there are situations in which I do not feel that abortion is entirely a bad choice. Debilitations that would spell misery and suffering beyond the sphere of the standard miseries that everyone is entitled to, or cases where it is clear that no efforts spent will improve the condition of the fetus may be such cases. Although I admit, having some idea what the process is like, I cannot say that I would ever recommend it to anyone.
Where I find pro-abortionists to be out of line, is when they support or fail to comment on the rise of girls and children under 18 who are having sexual intercourse and discarding their dead tissues like an old rag. We have fought for many rights since the days of women's suffrage, and as far back as the late nineteenth century, women have fought for the right for abortion. Regardless that we have a right to choose these days, we need to understand what happens to the fetus everytime a woman has an abortion.
Civics and Representation.
Many of us are aware of the history of our country. We are aware that the founding fathers beheld a kind of deist philosophy. As par the course of our historical pilgrimage out of the bonds of oppression, they set down roots here and ruled with the notion that the only power qualified to judge man was a divine force. Over two centuries later, we have a group of nine men and women who have been endowed to make such judgements over the rest of us.
Although there is a need for people who make laws to protect our freedoms as citizens of this nation, how can we be certain that those chosen to judge will do so in our best interests?
Conservatives and Religion.
Although I do not assume that all Christians are Conservatives, or that all Conservatives are Christian, my focus here is the Christian fundamentalist who is also Conservative. The people who wave banners about how abortion is murder. Religion makes people believe and do strange things. Christian who seek to impose an extreme view of their religion probably do so because of the belief that they are spreading the word of their faith. I mentioned the founding fathers earlier. Everytime a Christian fundamentalist involves themselves in an argument with someone whodoes not share their view, they cite the religiosity of the founding fathers. While I agree that the authors of the constitution maintained a level of religiosity, I do not believe that it could be accurately expressed with the same vivacity as modern Christian fundamentalism is expressed. "For love of God and country", not "Convert or die!".
In response to pdt_blgr:
I understand your argument. I understand that you believe that human life is human life and taking it away is murder.
I'll also assume that you thought it was wrong to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo and let her starve to death.
I would consider that mercy rather than murder.
I also consider it none of my business, as I didn't know Terri Schiavo or her family.
Which is really the point I'm trying to drive home here. It's not my business or yours whether someone gets an abortion or not.
Why do you care so much about someone you do not know? Are you on a religious trip? Are you trying to "save" people?
Someone else's abortion has absolutely NO EFFECT on your life. If you're against abortion, don't get one, but leave the decision up to the pregnant lady. Standing outside a clinic waving your sign around isn't making anyone's day any better and, believe me, it is not making a difference in the laws.
Pro-lifer's need to re-evaluate their own lives and find something better to do. There are much more worthwhile causes out there. If you want to save someone, go help the homeless... or someone else that is ALREADY IN THIS WORLD and could use some help. Turn all that anti-abortion rage into something positive and forget about the perfectly good stem-cells that are being flushed down the toilet.
katie,
With regard to this excerpt from your post:
"...conception is the fertilization of an egg and sperm. It is important that the distinction be made, since conception does not always result in fertilization."
The sperm fertilizes the egg. Conception occurs when that happens. The result of conception is not fertiliztion; the result of fertilization is conception.
For instance: your married, as a couple you decide to have a child. Pregnancy occurs (conception). You get about 3-4 months into it. (Average is 3 months or earlier for an abortion but still). There is a miscarriage.
Tell me, do you after words have a gravestone for this “un-human” thing? Do you remember in your head as a mother for the rest of your life the “would have been name” of this child? Do you year’s later play with thoughts of “them” in your head. What would they look like? How old would they be?
You can’t sit there and tell me you wouldn’t be that way.
In the instance that you want the child(in whatever form it may be), it is a human. Only then is this life good enough to be considered a person. Only then is it given rights, a name, and respect.
Now I do sympathize with a lot of situations. I am not 100% pro or against abortions because of this. I am just making a point.
The sad thing is…no matter the situation. We all consider the fetus human enough because once the choice is made to get rid of it. Once it is dead. You will never forget. Most can never let go. Some become suicidal and on antidepressants permanently. How is it a mass of um human cells can scar us in such a devastating way?
High volumes of abortions are by women under the age of 21 years old. At that age you really do not have a clue what your doing. You honestly shouldn’t be having sex especially unprotected. But it is the world we live in.
What if someone stood up and said hey…ya know what? Maybe we should make sure our daughters don’t get pregnant before they are done being children themselves. Maybe government-distributed birth control isn’t a bad idea. I mean economically I think it would do wonders. Overpopulated areas would stop reproducing at such high volumes. Abortion rates would drop drastically, drop out rates in high school would also diminish. Children that are products of rape or rape victims pregnant would be a little less likely. Orphanages wouldn’t be so crammed. Maybe more teenage girls could stay teenage girls.
Many are not on birth control because of embarrassment, or not being able to afford it or get to it. If it was the law until 21. You would see change.
Now I know I know we have rights and blah blah blah. But we have tons of rights that we as Americans do not take advantage of. And when your the mother of a teenage girl who doesn’t want that kid in her stomach you’ll remember reading this and thinking dear god, if that had been the way it was…………. who knows.
CRACKPIPECARLA!
Indeed! The crack you've smoked has clearly damaged your brain.
I can only hope that if you ever become pregnant, you'll make the decision to abort.
I can tell that you were NOT the debate team champion in high-school.
High-school! 'What's that?', you're probably asking yourself.
Well, Crackpipecarla, it's where you were supposed to be when you were sucking cock for crack in the alley.
You need to learn to develop an opinion on something before you argue a non-point. Also, learn to spell, and learn how to construct a paragraph properly.
You should have been an abortion.
Later Crackhead!
Splitting hairs on abortion--The Supreme Court, by making partial-birth abortions illegal, is in no way implicating that abortion is acceptable on its face. The Court can only address the point of law brought before it--nothing more.
Mr. Meloy points out the paradox of pluralism, which is apparent in the ruling...is abortion legal or isn't it? And who does government think it is to tell its citizens what is right or wrong?
First things first. Like it or not, abortion is legal. Americans have accepted, at least in theory, that abortion is part of our lifestyle, like it or not. As the concept of abortion as a right sinks into our psyche and we are more desensitized, the 'right' expands and we are now at the point of splitting hairs. And what hairs they are.
The victory includes more than the end of that procedure. The victory comes in the wonderful dissonance created when hairs are split. If partial-birth abortions are wrong, the entire topic of abortion in general is again under debate. The case is no longer closed.
Are the conclusions others make truly no one's business? Are laws that dpo not impact the health and safety of others the only acceptable laws? Using the abortion argument, abortion is more widely used as a method of birth control than as a means of protecting the health and safety of the mother. Pregnancy involves three people--mother, father and baby. Only one person's rights are protected under present abortion laws. So who speaks for the others?
In our pluralistic world view, almost any law passed can be argued against. Going to war has people at odds. Putting a road through a farming community that doesn't want one impacts their health and safety. So, who is right? Who's outrage is more righteous? Which truth is true?
It is amusing when religious folks get accused of ramming their lifestyles down others' throats. I've never seen a Christian Pride parade, or a Buddhist Pride parade, or a Hindu Pride parade. Christian broadcasting is relegated to a handful of cable/UHF channels. Many network shows have no mercy on Christians or other people of faith (Comcast using a Buddhist theme to sell cable). In the major market city I live in, there is only one conservative radio station--and it isn't Christian. So where is all this throat-ramming coming from?
My 88 year old Dad said the doesn't recognize the country anymore. He said he used to know what it meant to be an American, but he can't define it anymore out of fear of offending someone. Old school? Yep. Old hat? Sure. Old-fashioned? Lord, I hope not.
In Alexis' response to Crackheadcarla--Wow! Kinda mean. Doesn't everyone have the right to express an opinion? Wow. Saying that she should have been an abortion?? I thought we were leaving opinions, not attacks. Critique, not critical comments. Wow.
Katie-In the history of the American Revolution, it is important to understand that regardless of whether Jefferson or any of the Founders were deists or other ''ists'' is not the point. They held a view of God as the ultimate giver of all rights, thereby making human rights irrevocably sacred. It was so important, it was stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. Whether they believed in a distant, uninvolved God, or a personal God, they believed in His role as authority. Therefore, even King George had not the power or right to eliminate what one greater than he had bestowed on humanity. Unfortunately, too many of my fellow fundamentalists don't read history.
Apparently, they don't know much about historic Christianity, either. Neither Jesus, the original 12 apostles, nor Paul ever,ever taught "Convert or die". Blame that on the political motives of fallible humans. Missionaries risk their lives to bring the Gospel to others. They sure wouldn't get far if they charged into villages, brandishing pistols and machetes, would they? Look at what Christ teaches, not at what some wild-eyed dufus is shouting at you. You'll find they are quite different perspectives.
Not that this has anything to do with the thread...sorry.
The broader issue here is not whether abortion, partial-birth or otherwise should be legal at all, but should the government pay for it.
The Constitution of the United States was not designed for the government to engage in behavior regulation. The extent of the government's involvement in abortion should be do federal funds pay for it. Should they be performed at military hospitals for those entitled to health care at said hospitals. These are the issues which they are constitutionally mandated to address, not should you be able to have one at all.
Before abortion was legalized in this country, women had back room" abortions which led to the deaths of not only the fetus but also the mother. The only reason abortion was legalized was to provide women who felt that they had no choice, from resorting to measures such as using coathangers and visiting unsafe, unsterile venues, in which to have their abortions. It was a public health issue.
It is an unreasonable expectation that by banning something you will stop the act. Over history that has proven to be untrue. When Prohibition was passed it did not stop people from drinking but it did create a huge black market for people to get wealthy.
The same with drugs. Cocaine was banned when the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in the 1920's, but that hasn't stopped people from using it. Marijuana was legal as well yet we spend billions of dollars around the world trying to eradicate something that grows naturally. And people still use it.
We have banned smoking in public places, airplanes, even streets, but that has not eradicated the act of smoking. If the governments thought it would, would they continue to tax it and base their budgets on anticipated tax revenue from it?
Legislating behavior does not work. The power to do so is nowhere in the Constitution except as broadly interpreted by the legislature having the power to make laws.
The Supreme Court should stay out of this issue as should the legislative branch unless someone says the government has an obligation to pay for it. Then by all means, rule away.
Concerning Abortions:
Hell is on earth – we are living in a time where I wonder how the hell these people are able to have children. More and more babies are brought into this world stamped with a number ready to be lost into a system before their life starts.
I look around and see children having children –and what is worse, most have not had proper up bringing, morals, traditions and basically do not know what is meant in being labeled ‘a parent’. They are just ‘Children raising Children’.
They have lost their privilege of living life – and in most cases these children have to experience the trials and tribulations of life while raising a life.
Of course adoption is always an option. If after nine months of experiencing the bond between mother and child you are strong enough to place your child into someone else’s arms (how many children in the world are caught up in that system???) they again, have a good chance of no stable up-bringing, growing up with out knowing what it is to be loved, jumping from home – to – home and they again will have the stamp labeling them as just another number.
The Supreme Court – like the rest of governments – only agenda is to control! Control us – turn us into their little robots… They are similar to an abusive spouse. They want us to eat, sleep and work their way. What they say goes – no questions asked, no back lip – do as I say, when I say - or suffer. They want to punish the ones who know they are not ready and not able to provide. They want to make it illegal to have abortions. So parents are now forced to lead a life with heads under water, with little or no chance to escape the suffocating realization of not feeling dry land.
While all of this is happening, the stress and hardships have most likely caused the parents to separate. Now having a single mother or father to raise a child alone while the other parent is most likely a dead-beat.
Now you file for assistance from the government – (let’s ask some of them Washington boys to provide for there children off of that!) the bare necessities are almost covered, so you get a job to provide more for your family. You have no real experiences and no real experience jobs just don’t pay – of course it doesn’t take any real experience to figure that one out… you’re barely making ends meet and they take your check because you are getting a check.
So you have a choice –
Work two jobs, pay someone to watch your child and still provide a healthy home environment, food, clothes and other necessities while trying to be a good parent and spend quality time and teaching the fundamentals of life – don’t forget you have to sleep – oh yeah, all of this while being a single parent!
OR
Stay on welfare, collect and get what you can from the government and start having more babies to get more money to provide the little bit more that you can.
OR
Say fuck it…. Do what you got to do – with no job training or experience you start selling drugs, prostituting, robbing, stealing - anything you can do to get clothes on their back and food on the table. We all know that life leads nowhere – so now once again, you and your children are labeled as a number, another statistic.
With this said, if you are unable to provide a healthy home, love, time and financial support - YOU SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY.
Proverbs 24:11-12 says, "Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows you knew! And he will reward everyone according to his deeds."
Since I have heard many arguments that Congress voted based on their religious beliefs, not the law, I felt that people should get a taste of what those religious beliefs include. This should help keep them from being the abstract thoughts of someone else and make you realize why it is not ok to simply say, "It is none of our business what other people do".
According to the Priestsforlife website only 20% of partial birth abortions are performed for medical reasons. Congress banning partial birth abortions is taking away women's right to choose, but because 80% of those women are "choosing" to evict these babies from their womb's for purely selfish reasons that is an unfair part of life we have to live with. I am sure that we have all been told since childhood that life isn't fair. What is fair for the baby? When does the fetus become a baby and get the same protection that every other person does? Is it when their heart begins to beat? When they can move their limbs? Or when they first kick? All of these things happen before four months. Well before partial birth abortions are performed.
There are laws that stop us from killing our neighbor, even if he throws rocks at our children. Isn't it only logical that there should be a law stopping us from killing a child in utero? Actually it is more humane to shoot our neighbor than to use forcepts to pull out their legs and torso, then insert scissors into the back of their head to form a hole to allow a vaccum to suck their brains out of their heads and cause their skull to colapse. Hopefully they do no come out alive and suffer longer. That does happen according to Jill Stanek RN. "In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives "comfort care," defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die." I have to wonder why they don't deliver the head before puncturing and vaccuming it. Is that because then it would be a birth not an abortion? Maybe it is because the doctor can't look at the babies face and still perform the procedure. I guess we can all keep saying that this is a religious debate, but I think it is pretty obvious that it is a moral debate and may the good guys win.
This issue really amuses me because the players on this stage do a complete role reversal. Normally, liberals who want government control of everything from owning guns to saying prayers want to be unencumbered by any such control when it comes to deciding whether to kill their unborn offspring. Conversely, conservatives with more laissez-faire attitudes toward guns and prayers wish to outlaw abortion.
Of course, anyone with any sense of ethics, morals, and just plain old inner goodness knows that for them, legal or not legal, abortion is not an option. Abortion is just another way to annihilate the depraved from our society over time, a self -inflicted genocide. Since 1973 they have managed to wipe out over 40 million of themselves. It is interesting to note, however, that of late, the abortion rate has declined. The mothers that killed their unborn daughters thirty years ago, who would now have been in their child bearing years, do not have that choice simply because they are not here to make it. It will take several generations before we see an overall improved society, but it can be done if we continue to allow them their freedom.
Children that are raised in homes that teach morality and ethics will not see a legality of any kind a carte blanche for them. Whether legal or illegal, they know abortion is wrong, they know the reasons it is wrong, and they will not do it. On the other hand, if those who are inherently evil, the conscienceless socio-paths of our society wish to kill their unborn babies, well then let them do so. Don’t stand in their way wasting our tax dollars litigating the right to life of their progeny. After a few generations of allowing them the freedom to kill their own, I firmly believe that we will see an overall decline of crime, and especially violent crime. Our society will be comprised of an ethical and humane people with accountability and morality. Let those that want to kill their own do so.
Think about it, do you want people like this to continue to produce others that think the same way? They are only destroying the likeness of themselves. Why do you want to fight these people? Why do you want to help create a future world propagated by generation after generation of miscreants? Let them kill their sons and daughters so our progeny can work and relax in a more peaceful and secure society.
Post a Comment