This is probably the most clearly defined issue in this election. For many people this issue alone defines the election and decides who they will vote for. That's just sick and wrong, of course, but the issue of abortion seems to be more polarizing than just about any other issue. I would argue that - on the grand scheme of things - there are issues which should be more important - energy for instance, or perhaps the economy. Water and food for the world - how many die daily from lack of water or food? How many are miserable? This list of important issues could go on forever, but by now you either understand my point or you never will.
On abortion we may never agree. My position is this:
1) Any view on abortion is based on belief;
2) I believe 'life' begins at birth, not at conception - abortion does not violate the commandment 'thou shall not kill';
3) I could modify the above (birth) to include not just natural birth, but beginning when the child can be removed from the womb and be reasonably expected to be a normal, healthy human. This point in fetus development is extremely difficult to define;
4) I do not enjoy the concept of abortion; (does this surprise you?)
5) I believe the mother and the father should have a choice;
6) Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, or even slow the number of abortions;
7) If abortion is made illegal, it will return to the squalid conditions of the early 1900's, where coathangers were the tools, and no doctor was in sight. Not only will the potential new life be erased, the mother has a less than 50% chance of survival as well, and if she does survive, may never be able to conceive again;
There may be more to my view, but this is what I can think of just off the top of my head for now.
However, there are a few other things concerning this issue of abortion that make me go 'hmmmmm?'. For this I'm going to, fairly or not, put all "right to life'ers" in one bucket. Let's talk about death. Because that's what it's all about, right?
To me it seems that the "right to life'ers" put abortion at the top of their list of things they want to put a stop to, and they trace their strong feelings directly back to that commandment in the bible, 'thou shall not kill'. There is a lot of killing going on in this world - how, in their mind, does abortion rate the number one position in the list of 'killing to oppose'? How about some of these?
1) Vehicular;
2) War;
3) Genocide, Ethnic cleansing;
4) Disease;
5) Crime.
The list is really quite long. I want to include long term killing as well - things that could eventually kill millions, like poisoning rivers, which creates huge dead zones in the oceans and seas, and could eventually lead to the complete destruction of life in the ocean - which would in turn probably result in termination of life on earth; or deforestation and destruction of habitat for the diverse species needed to sustain a balanced ecology, again possibly resulting in the planet no longer being capable of sustaining life.
Yes, these are all subjects of other essays, but they are related to abortion. They are related in this way. The same group that professes to oppose abortion, the Republicans, do not recognize these things as a problem, and therefore have no plan to address them. To me that seems like such a total contradiction within their own philosophy that I don't see how they can remain sane! Okay, that's a little extreme, perhaps, but really, it boils down to 'acceptable killing' and 'unacceptable killing'.
If you don't like abortion, don't do it. That's simple minded, I agree, but that is, to me, what it boils down to. Practice your beliefs. Don't impose your beliefs on me. Please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Amen. WLC.
Your statement number 2 states it all: you believe that life begins at birth, not conception. With that belief, how could you NOT believe “the mother and the father should have a choice” about abortion. Only some power-crazed demon (some Democrats and some Republicans fall into this category) could have your belief and still want to deny freedom . . . I think. If, on the other hand, one believes that the fetus, even the zygote, is truly a human being, and deserves all the protection that society devolves on any of its human beings, then protection from murder is just one of those. With that belief, how could one NOT call abortion Murder? And could one with that belief let others continue to murder just because they don’t believe the same way? May I remind you that only a few centuries ago in Mother England, the majority considered children to be the “property” of their parents, who could sell them into slavery. Or just 150 years ago slaves (human beings) in this country could be beaten, maimed or killed as property. For us old farts, that’s not too long ago. I don’t know how one gets one or the other of these beliefs about when humanness begins, but we each have one (or some variety). Why are these things so hard for you to understand?
As for the “Red Herring” argument about deaths due to Vehicular, War, Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Disease, Crime; these are, sadly, just the maladies that society devolves on any of its human beings. Why aren’t these being addressed? Well, it wasn’t too many elections ago when Crime WAS the hot topic of discussion (and Republicans had a LOT to say about it). Abortion took a lesser seat then, even though it was still hot. Each of these topics has been front and center at times in our recent history, and not even the Democrats have a current widely discussed policy on Vehicular deaths on our roads. Much of it is due to news media decisions about what they think society will get riled up about; those topics make the widest circulation/viewing audience and are thus the most profitable. Yes, we all know society is fickle in its fads, and political concerns fall into that. I am glad to see that you are concerned about these important things; can you get your Democrats to address them more pointedly? Or is the fad-time past for these? Now that we know why they aren’t discussed by anybody at the moment, why do you think they are pertinent to the abortion discussion?
Maybe we ought to be asking ourselves why we have “issues” at all? You tried to list a few, but they were too broad to generate a good fight. “Energy” is not a fight-causing issue, but who to blame for the high price of filling my gas tank IS. “The Economy” is not a fight-causing issue, but minimum wage or welfare or taxes ARE. “Water and food for the world” is not a fight-causing issue, but foreign aid could be (maybe not this year). Republicans and Democrats NEED to generate fights, or else they won’t get news coverage, and nobody will listen to them. That’s one of the facts of life of politics. “Freedom to Choose” and “Right to Life” are battle cries in, what I call, The Fight. Politics needs The Fight. It keeps people busy so they don’t have energy left to care about other issues, even issues about abortion. For instance, how can the joy in receiving each new life co-exist with a condemnation of out-of-wedlock babies? Won’t even slight chastisement by a preacher cause some young women to consider abortion? And another “for instance” asks if the counseling at abortion clinics includes being sensitive to whether or not the woman describes the fetus as “my baby” or “my pregnancy”? This may be the only clue that the counselor gets concerning the woman’s belief: is this a human being or a promising growth. Will the counsel only consist of “you only have so much time to make up your mind,” or will different advice address the future mental health of a woman who believes she might kill “her baby” (her words, not the ones you might choose)? These are the kind of questions that could be asked and resolved if each “side” could acknowledge that the other’s beliefs, while “wrong”, are understandable. Or at least that it’s better to talk with (rather than yell at or preach to) ANYone. (Does this have a counterpart in the War discussion?) But The Fight keeps us from these questions. Dumb, huh? Are they important? Jane Roe (remember Roe vs Wade?) thinks so . . . now. So we pursue a good fight because it causes our blood to run hot and stiffens our backbone and stomach muscles, and we seem to need that.
And I notice that you are against single-issue voting. Well, we each get to pick the issues we weigh heavest. I, for one, give the Iraq War extreme weight. It will sway me to vote for a man whose economic policies do not please me. Do either candidate’s economic policies exactly match my thinking? Hell no. But I’ve only got one vote, and we’ve got a 2-party (not nearly enough) system. And my vote is usually cast based on ONE issue that I weigh heavier than all others. If you ask many, you will only find a (perhaps large) minority who could go either way so look at all issues. My belief is that most do what I do, just different issues. I suspect that you do, also. My belief is also that the American People can survive ANY president. In our 220 years, we’ve had some doozies, and we’ve survived them all. I have great faith.
First, W1027, let me thank you for your comments. Perhaps we can discuss face to face sometime. I appreciate each of your points.
A question: at the end of paragraph one you ask a question. I don't understand what it is you feel I don't understand! In fact I agree with everything you said in the paragraph. The question gives me the impression that you are attacking my belief, but in the text you clearly describe both sides of the argument and I did not get the impression you were arguing for either side. I guess I was wrong.
In the second paragraph you call me a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat, but I will vote Democratic in this election. I will always be an independent - just not a party person, well, not a political party person. At this point in time though I must admit that the extreme right bent of the Republican party is abhorrent to me. The economic philosophy of the Republican party is not acceptable to me. On the whole, I'm much closer to the Democratic way of thinking than to the Republican way of thinking - and I too wish there were more than two choices.
Lastly for now, you asked why pertinent. I was trying to list the ways of killing other than abortion (if abortion is killing) that should be at least equally important in the moral discussion.
I don't have your faith exactly. I have great faith in the American People, although the result of the 2004 election shook that faith quite a bit. And I believe the country and the world can survive any ONE president, even GWB. But if we continue on this path, and I'm convinced McCain would try to, it could be irrecoverable. I read somewhere that the average lifetime of world powers (Roman, Greek, whatever) is about 300 years, give or take. Whether that is true I really don't know, but all organizations contain the seeds of their own distruction (I think) - little things like trying to convert the world to your way of life (very common amongst world powers). Okay, I'm rambling now. Going to bed. Goodnight!
How exciting! I'm liking this discussion. WLC.
For more on this subject, see http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-skews-sc.html
Post a Comment