Abortion is an issue that has ripped apart the nation and effectively ruined American politics. Is it a woman's right to choose whether to be rid of the growth inside of her, or is it in the common interest of the people to let the unborn child live? This issue has been brought to the forefront of my mind by the national pro-life rally that was held outside my office building (at the Capitol) just yesterday. Millions of people came from all over the US of A to protest what they view as an unfair ruling by the Supreme Court that allows women to seek abortions in the first trimester of their pregnancy. Besides making traffic difficult for me and leaving pounds of trash on the sidewalk, these people didn't do much for me.
My view on abortion stems not from a religious argument but from one of natural right and one of the limits of power for the Federal government. Let me start by saying that I do not support abortion in any form, but I also do not support the Federal government mandating that to me through law. My argument is very simple. There is an unborn human child growing inside of a pregnant woman. Not a tumor and even though it may have the brain composition of a fish (or whatever the argument is); it is still a human. Now it may not be a human with the right to vote but it certainly has the right to grow up and either succeed or fail in the world- the same way everyone else has. A woman and a man have the choice to either have sex or not have sex, and if pregnancy is the outcome, then they must live with the consequence of that choice. They have the option to use contraception and if they forgo that option it is not in the public interest to "let the mother off the hook" or whatever you may call it. After conception, there is a human life growing inside a woman and we should recognize that.
Now, it is not the job of the Federal government to dictate what is right and wrong to me. It is there jobs to recognize the rights we have as Americans and to make sure that those rights are not being violated by the laws that they pass. We do not have a right to kill unwanted children, but we do have the right to life, which begins at conception. If it is determined that we, as children in the womb, do not have the right to live( which has already been done by the Supreme Court, to a certain extent), then any laws passed should be done at the state level. As I said before it is not the job of the Federal government to bail people out for their poor choices.
Now, undoubtedly, the issue of a woman being impregnated after raped will be raised and this is a valid point. But consider this, it is not the fault of the future child that he/she was conceived in such a heinous fashion, so should they be punished? For those of you who don't understand the use of a leading question; the answer is no.
To be sure, abortion is an issue that inflames the sensitivities of the general public and gets politicians elected and ousted. It is a shame that such a thing has been allowed to blow up as big as it is and turn our political system into a mockery that is divided along religious lines. This is not a religious issue, it is a human issue. To conclude I would remind my readers that we too were once fetuses in the most vulnerable of stages. We turned out pretty good, and some people don't. If a couple or woman does not want the child then let her put them up for adoption. That way at least the child has a chance. Ultimately this issue will be decided by women because, most of all, it effects them. I don't see a resolution coming from anywhere other than the Supreme Court in the future so let us hope that the Judges understand that it is their jobs to define rights as opposed to defining sensibilities.
We stand to protect human rights around the world, so let us do it at home by protecting the rights of future generations.
31 comments:
Personally, I consider a fully developed brain a human. I do not think fetus is human, if we go down that way we have to say sperms are human too.
Who is going to pay the price of the unwanted babies or unqualified parents? I don't think any argument could convince me that he tax money that can go to health and education of already existing people should be used for paying other people's mistake? I find it extremely gross that many junkie teenagers get pregnant to use the social services! Realistically, a human child of the 21 century needs care, education, health, love, food, attention and healthy relationships. A child is going to be taken care of until after university or perhaps longer. These are all extremely delicate and costly matters. I think considering everything, there is one agreeable human right; that the parents should be capable of making a choice.
What if the doctors say that the baby is going to be defected for sure? What if there is a very high likelihood of a very unhealthy child? I would be very angry if doctors tell me that you are going to have a baby with 2 heads and no legs and then the society force me to keep it.
I agree people make mistakes and they have to face consequences but they should not lose everything for it. A person makes a mistake, condom breaks or somebody get raped; I don't think babies are any more important than people, does she have to go through a 9 month of painful process, extreme emotional distress and the very complications that occur afterward? What for? To prove that every life is equally sacred?
Aren't we living in an over populated planet with limited resources?
"To prove that every life is equally sacred?"
You make a strong argument, and to answer your question: Yes we to prove every life is sacred. No one is forcing anyone to keep the child after birth. Give it up if you don't want it.
"I don't think babies are any more important than people"
I don't think anyone thinks babies are more important than people. Just equally important.
"I think considering everything, there is one agreeable human right; that the parents should be capable of making a choice. "
I agree. And they make the choice to have sex or not to have sex. Look, following my policy isn't going to lead to millions more unwanted children suddenly springing up. It's just going to give people a chance.
Hey you might want to check your spelling in this post. I think that you have really good points, but spelling is really important too!
"I don't think anyone thinks babies are more important than people. Just equally important."
Let me throw this scenario at you.
First, you get raped.
Then you're told that a person you never met needs your body to survive. You'll be wired to this person and feeding them your energy for nine months. Aside from the excruciating pain guaranteed at the end, there is a greater than 0% chance that this person will kill you.
If you make it through the nine months, you can raise the child of your rapist. Or, you can give your baby away.
That's a pretty grim choice.
And fetuses aren't babies.
Your argument is that the fetus has the same rights as a child that is alive independently, outside the mother. You're saying that the biological symbiosis of mother and child does not infringe on the independent, natural rights of the fetus. The fundamental legal rights of the fetus supersede any claim made by the person in whose body the fetus resides.
If we accept your ordering of the priority of rights, here are some natural conclusions on how society should defend the rights of the fetus.
1) It should be illegal for pregnant women to smoke, drink, or perform any activity that is likely to be injurious to the person of the fetus. In such cases the mother should be charged with negligence causing bodily harm to a minor.
2) Fetuses are a vulnerable component of society, and as such the state should do its best to protect them. To this end, pregnant mothers should report to licensed physicians at least once a month. The physician should ensure that the mother takes reasonable care not to injure the person of the fetus.
3) If abortions are performed illegaly, the mother should be charged with murder, as in cases of infanticide. A fertilized egg has all the same rights as a five year old child, and is legally recognized as a person. The charge for violating a person's right to live is murder. In some states, murder is punishable by death.
We all want to see the number of abortions drop to zero. But that drop can't come through social control. It's morally unacceptable for society to control the bodies of individuals to the extent required to outlaw abortions.
Government cannot lay claim to the reproductive organs of individual women. You can't speak of natural rights and ignore the most natural right; the right of a woman to decide what is best for the fetus inside her. Pregnancy is a contract between mother and fetus which is older than government; older than the social compact; older than tribes; older even than cohabitation of male and female. Pregnancy is an ancient, solitary experience, one that is well beyond the right of society to control.
The federal government is the most powerful thing in the country. And you don't think it should decide when and under which circumstances women should have abortions? Your stance is on natural right yet it doesn't protect a natural right?
Your rape/abortion argument is absolutely atrocious and offensive. Even fanatics often support it under those circumstances.
'A woman and a man have the choice to either have sex or not have sex, and if pregnancy is the outcome, then they must live with the consequence of that choice. They have the option to use contraception and if they forgo that option it is not in the public interest to "let the mother off the hook" or whatever you may call it.'
This section is particularly disturbing. I'm all for personal responsibility, but we're talking about kids. Teenagers and younger. Drug addicts. Impoverished single mothers. This debate should not be reclusive to educated middle to upper class people who contemplate contraception and sex each time before it occurs. I doubt even 20% of people having sex haven't had a time or two where a condom broke, a missed pill, etc. And that's not even getting into the overarching people to whom you refer.
You can't just give up children. They aren't clothes. They need families. Good families who will give them an opportunity to pursue happiness. If you need statistics on the number of children in orphanages who are abused, I can provide them for you.
My stance is very simple. There is a human life growing inside of a woman. Not a tumor, not a simple organism. It is a human life. And as such we should not allow that life to be snuffed out out of convenience. We stick to our ideals even when they aren't convenient and our ideals are those that protect human life.
And putting children up for adoption is a viable choice. There are many families and parents who want children and who anxiously await a child to come to them through the adoption process. Sure the foster system is in shambles, so maybe then we should shift the debate on how to fix it, and away from the legality of killing the unborn children. This will not be an issue for the federal government to regulate, it should be one left up to the states and the voters who reside in those states.
This is an issue upon which there should be no compromise.
I agree with Agga and ConArtist. Your only basis for such argument is that you say it's a human life. You will not make any point by using a world which has different definition for different people.
I consider abortion the right choice for anyone who does not want a child for any reason. I think the only decent thing that a government can do is to pass a law that these matters better be left to individuals.
Are you comparing a semi developed biological organism to an actual human being's life and then you want to equalize them?
This issue is pretty much solved in almost all modern societies by giving the right to the woman as the natural right as Agga beautifully described. Have a look:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm
even Saudi, Somalia and the rest of the most fanatic and backward countries do not fully agree with you. However, Vatican city completely agrees with you!
Christopher Hitchens also agrees with me and I would hardly call him fanatical in the way of such governments as Saudi Arabia and Somalia.
I find it illogical for leftists such as agga and conartist to argue so strongly for the individual rights of a woman and for government control of many other aspects of life at the same time. Seems to me like a very conservative-minded argument.
It is also illogical for them to wish to see the "rate of abortions drop to zero" and yet justify its existence. Why would you like to see the rate drop to zero if it isn't a bad thing in your mind?
I just don't understand how one can argue that a fetus does not deserve the right to live. It is not going to grow up to be a horse or an apple. It will grow to become a human. You can argue as much as you want that it is a single cell organism and not yet a human, but there is no argument that it will, in fact, become one.
Much as it was in the common interest to end slavery, even though that would mean taking away a person's unalienable right to property; it is in the common interest to end abortion, if in fact killing an unborn child is an unalienable right.
Wow,wait a second, common interest??? Where exactly was the part of the argument that proves illegal abortion is to my interest? Where exactly did you show us that if a college teenager gives birth, it's beneficial to the society? Why should forcing a woman to keep a rape child against her will be to my interest? Where exactly do you prove that abortion is a bad thing? You are just saying it's not going to be an apple, so what?
Christopher Hitchens should also realize that the abortion right has been realized, adapted and applied in almost all the civilized democratic countries and you will not hear any argument about it except people's houses and local churches. Does he talk about making abortion illegal or he just expresses his opinion about his own unwanted baby?
"We stick to our ideals even when they aren't convenient and our ideals are those that protect human life."
1) My ideals include keeping the government out of the uterus. I also don't support China's One Child policy, which forces abortions on rural women. Citizens have the right to control what happens in their own bodies.
2) Don't trivialize the issue by calling abortions convenient. The decision to get an abortion is rarely made with nonchalance. You accusing mothers of making the "convenient" decision is equivalent to me saying abortions are "no big deal". It makes you sound callous.
"This is an issue upon which there should be no compromise."
No compromise? No morning after pills? No birth control either, since you're killing all those potential human beings. Maybe you should clearly define the boundaries before you try drawing a line in the sand.
"I find it illogical for leftists such as agga and conartist to argue so strongly for the individual rights of a woman and for government control of many other aspects of life at the same time."
The supposedly collective political views of "The Left" are hardly relevant to this debate. But I'll humour you. There are 3 basic human functions, the most essential "aspects of life". They are: eat, sleep, and reproduce. I don't want the government controlling any of those functions - aside from when they harm others, like with cannibalism or rape.
"It is also illogical for them to wish to see the "rate of abortions drop to zero" and yet justify its existence. Why would you like to see the rate drop to zero if it isn't a bad thing in your mind?"
I'd like to see the abortion rate drop to zero because abortions are emotionally traumatic and comparatively expensive. It's sad that women feel they need to do it. I would be thrilled if birth control were perfect and universally used. Or if every woman that was considering an abortion decided to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption.
But neither of those wishes reflects reality. That's where politicians who see no compromise usually get lost. Tomorrow thousands of women and young girls will wake up to find out that a fetus they don't want is living inside them. They have the right to control what happens inside their bodies. But even if you ignore that right, and society tells women they can't get abortions, they will. They'll get abortions in dirty backstreet clinics, from unlicensed doctors, or by ingesting poison or falling down the stairs. Some will be badly injured, others will die.
"Much as it was in the common interest to end slavery, even though that would mean taking away a person's unalienable right to property; it is in the common interest to end abortion, if in fact killing an unborn child is an unalienable right."
Ironic then, how many black women resisted white control of their bodies by aborting the pregnancies brought on by rape at the hands of their masters. Would you argue that black slave women had a moral duty to carry the children of their rapists to term, give birth in a dirty shed, and then give up their babies to a lifetime of enslavement? Or is there a threshold at which you have enough compassion for women to let them end their suffering early?
The idea here is more about quality of life than 'life' itself. I don't believe in numeric value to attribute to a healthy society. I'm more concerned with the quality of life for those already living. And when that isn't that high, surely we shouldn't bring more unwanted children into it. Maybe under different circumstances I would feel differently.
What is more traumatic, a woman who has an abortion, or a woman who has a child at 16 and becomes a prostitute to provide for that child?
Many prostitutes had children and this cycle is very perpetuating.
Putting children up for adoption is not a choice many mothers make. Try and empathize with a mother, once she has the child and has carried it around for 9 months she can get kind of attached obviously. And she may choose to provide for that child at either too young of an age or abuse the child or neglect it. In other words, when she is not apt to do so.
The foster system is bad in and of itself and it's because there are too many children and not enough would-be parents.
I don't consider myself necessarily pro-big government. I'm pro good, productive government. And each issue I can view objectively. So I may fall on the side of the individual or the state, it varies case by case.
You sound Neanderthal to think of potential life in such a small window. What of stem cells. Embryonic research? Should contraceptives even be used or is every sperm sacred? I really can't imagine a world in which abortion wasn't an option for women.
By the way Mark, if you managed to enforce a total ban on abortions, would you arrest women who came up to Canada to get one? Start interrogating every pregnant woman at the border over whether she's planning a murder?
"2) Don't trivialize the issue by calling abortions convenient. The decision to get an abortion is rarely made with nonchalance. You accusing mothers of making the "convenient" decision is equivalent to me saying abortions are "no big deal"."
What's not to trivialize? Judging by your definition of abortion, a woman is doing no more than removing an unwanted abscess from inside of her. If a fetus is worth no more than that of a collection of cells then what is there to be callous about? I had surgery to remove a growth from my stomach lining and I didn't brood over it, so using your definition of a fetus, what is there to be callous about? Don't try to make me out to be a bad guy when I use YOUR definitions,which you argue so eloquently for, and then come off as callous or cavalier. It seems that you pace a little more value on a fetus than you may have thought. The question is why?
"Or if every woman that was considering an abortion decided to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. "
Easy there boss, if you start using words like that, that implies human life and rights. I do not believe that abortions being an emotionally stressful decision is why you would want to see them drop to zero. I mean, buying your first house is an emotionally stressful decision and I don't wish to see that drop to zero.
And the fact that if we outlaw abortions that more girls would get them done illegally doesn't make for a good enough reason to allow them to continue. We don't provide clean heroin to addicts because since it is outlawed they will use it anyways and some may die. It is the same logic.
"What is more traumatic, a woman who has an abortion, or a woman who has a child at 16 and becomes a prostitute to provide for that child?"
So conartist, you would continue to see 1.5 million babies (agga's word)killed a year just so that in the most rare of cases a girl becomes a prostitute to pay for the child? That is a personal choice of hers to make, and also her fault for not taking advantage of the already in place government programs that could help her. And I know those programs aren't perfect; I know the foster- care system sucks, but once again lets talk about fixing those systems. Lets talk about "providing a better quality of life" for soon-to-be mothers and their children.
"You sound Neanderthal to think of potential life in such a small window."
Haha what does that even mean.Were Neanderthals having this same debate around their campfires? Let's try to shy away from the words that invoke so much emotion and stick to the facts. What small window is it that I think of life in? I think life begins at conception. If you'd read the original post you would know that contraceptives are fine. Why is this a "Neanderthal" concept? If a happy family has an unwanted pregnancy and decides to keep the child anyways, is that primitive of them? Once again, concentrate on the facts and a little less of the accusatory language.
Agga- You means top women at the border like we stop military deserters and old people looking for prescription meds? I think we both know that is not going to happen.
The haggling over definitions is a bit pointless. If I slip up and use the word "baby" instead of "fetus", it's not because I'm unsure of how I view the matter. Obviously a fetus has the potential to become a baby. Just like a fertilized egg has the potential to become a fetus.
You sound callous when you talk about abortions being convenient because you're ignoring the emotional trauma for the mother. Is your answer to ask, "why should the mother be traumatized over a collection of cells, if it's not a baby"? Because the mother is also aware that the fetus could become a baby, and she mourns the loss of a possible future. But possible futures are not reality.
"I do not believe that abortions being an emotionally stressful decision is why you would want to see them drop to zero. I mean, buying your first house is an emotionally stressful decision and I don't wish to see that drop to zero."
You can do better than that Mark! Obviously buying a house and getting an abortion are different kinds of stress. Maybe I shouldn't have brought up that part about reducing the number of abortions to zero - that's mostly an olive branch I extend to militant pro-lifers. I'm realistic enough to realize that some people will always oppose abortion. It could be eliminated with better birth control use, and more social programs for pregnant teens, and so I see reducing the numbers as a compromise. But if I had a uterus I would have no problem aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
"And the fact that if we outlaw abortions that more girls would get them done illegally doesn't make for a good enough reason to allow them to continue. We don't provide clean heroin to addicts because since it is outlawed they will use it anyways and some may die. It is the same logic."
Many states provide methadone and clean needles to heroin addicts. They supply them in a clean environment, and this is done because the illegal route is much more dangerous. How is that different from abortions? It isn't just about making it legal because people will do it anyway. It's about the fact that the illegal methods are so much more dangerous. (As a sidenote, you probably shouldn't make the analogy between pregnant women and heroin addicts on the campaign trail.)
"Agga- You mean stop women at the border like we stop military deserters and old people looking for prescription meds? I think we both know that is not going to happen."
Which brings us to the question of enforcement. If abortion is made illegal, how would you punish women who have it done illegally? If a woman poisons herself to kill a fetus, what's the jail term? Is it the same punishment she would get if she delivered an unwanted baby and left it to die in a dumpster? How will you punish girls under the age of 18 for abortions? Will you punish women who have them done in Canada? Basically, how much should women have to suffer for defying the government's control over their reproductive organs?
What about the so-called "morning after pills"? They can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. No good? You do say life begins at conception. But 95% of fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out anyway, so preventing implantation is actually more natural than having a pregnancy.
Oh, and you didn't answer one of my earlier questions. Were enslaved black women wrong to induce abortions after their masters raped them? Should they have gone through with 9 months of working in the fields while pregnant (which could kill them), followed by giving birth in their sheds (which could kill them), and then given up their babies to a lifetime of slavery?
Or is it possible that in certain circumstances you can accept abortion, or even see it as the lesser of two evils? In Argentina abortions of rape pregnancies are allowed, but only if the woman is mentally retarded. Is that too liberal for you? Are retarded girls who get raped responsible to go through with a pregnancy, even if they can't understand what's happening to their bodies? In that case, when does the rape really end?
What about pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman? Is it better abort the pregnancy, or to let both her and the fetus die?
I bring up all these cases because you've taken such an absolute stand. I'm curious to see where your righteousness shows some mercy on women.
So far this whole debate has revolved around whether or not abortions are murder.
I think a good analogy is that mothers are a life-support machine for fetuses. If you unplug the fetus, it will die. Fetuses are essentially alive in the same way as a person we would call a vegetable: minimal brain activity, can't survive without the machine.
Take this scenario. A random guy gets hit by a truck and becomes a vegetable. The only way he can recover is if a woman is wired up to him for 9 months, sharing her blood and energy. At the end there is a very painful unhooking procedure which tears her vagina up.
Does the government have the right to force a woman to keep this vegetable alive?
You're right you probably should not have extended that olive branch, but it's one I hear many people use to defend their positions on it, and it doesn't make sense.
"You can do better than that Mark! Obviously buying a house and getting an abortion are different kinds of stress."
My point was not to highlight the kind of stress such a decision would cause. It was to highlight the hypocrisy of the argument that you used, (obviously against your better judgment since you say you shouldn't have said it), and which many pro-choicers use.
The use of the definitions of "baby" and "fetus" are not pointless, those words carry meaning with them and I think you know better.
The reason I am so absolutist is because in America it would be difficult to have abortions on a limited case. How do you prove that you were raped? I mean I know it happens, and I know women get pregnant because of it, but should they really have to go through a legal battle just to prove they'd been raped, just to get an abortion? It would be nearly impossible to do. A persona can either have abortions or they can't.
I think you understand my point with the heroin. Let me use another one then. There isn't a drunk driving lane on the highway solely for the use of drunk drivers. I mean, people are always going to drive drunk, and having their own lane would surely be safer, but it doesn't make sense to do that.
As far as enforcement, that is for the courts to decide. I could probably "extend an olive branch" as you say and say that the morning after pills are okay.
You know that 1 month old children also require their mother's help to live and are really not much smarter than a vegetable, and yet it is murder for one to kill them. So I don't buy that argument either. Many newborns die of natural causes every year,so should we also look at them as having "possible futures"?
The difference there is that a 1 month old child can be kept alive by anyone. My point there was that a fetus isn't murdered, in the sense of an independent life being ended. It is taken off a life support machine, without which it is incapable of surviving.
Is enforcement really for the courts to decide? I assume that if a total abortion ban were to be legislated, the bill would have to include some guidelines for sentencing. Otherwise you leave it up to common law, and common law allows abortions in the first place.
I actually took a minute to ponder the practicality of a drunk driving lane, haha. Clearly it is a bad idea. I'm going to help you out and provide a good analogy for your argument. You're saying that providing legal abortions because the illegal ones are too dangerous would be equivalent too: providing pure ecstasy to drug users because the street stuff is so often tainted. And I would say: bravo, good argument. But I don't view abortion as comparable to activities like drug use and drunk driving, because it's not done recreationally and because I don't view it as potentially hurting other people.
"I know women get pregnant because of it, but should they really have to go through a legal battle just to prove they'd been raped, just to get an abortion?" "A persona can either have abortions or they can't."
That's the crux of the problem isn't it? If abortions are going to be either legal or illegal in all cases, which side is better for society? Currently about 50% of American women who are impregnated by their rapists choose to abort. Make that illegal, and how many of those women will do it illegally? How many will die of infection or overdose themselves trying to kill the fetus?
Ok, now I know you would be alright with the morning after pill. So life begins at conception, but it's ok to flush it out before life makes it into the womb. Could you state your position on the other cases?
1) Pregnant retarded women. Let's assume nobody knows who the father is, and the woman is too severely handicapped to understand pregnancy.
2) Raped minors. Possibly incest. Should a 15 year old girl have to go through 9 months of pregnancy after her father raped her?
3) Pregnancies which endanger the physical health of the woman. Are you willing to let mother and fetus die?
4) Pregnancies which endanger the mental health of the woman. Probably this would come up most in rape and incest cases, but we would leave the diagnosis up to a mental health professional.
and just out of curiousity,
5) The raped slaves situation that I brought up earlier. Humour the historian in me.
It's really a shame there appear to be no women commenting on your blog.
I really agree with agga. If there were women commenting they would have filled this page jam-packed with emotion and statistics and stories that would make your heart break.
It's heartless for a man to delegate what a woman should do with her body in circumstances that deal with pregnancy. You're righteous stand is really all but.
You seem to have complete disregard for the rights of a woman and seem solely to care for a fetus.
Sad really. Also, maybe you would have a different outlook if you were personally affected.
Maybe not, but like the death penalty, until people are under certain circumstances, it's difficult to discern how they'd feel.
Aside from the issues of pain and suffering, I think the right choice always is to give birth to a baby which is going to be taken care of without putting the rest of the society in trouble, and foster cares are not the ideal place unless there is no other option.
If making decisions for other people's body was not strictly against my ideas I would actually say a well thought abortion is not just always the right choice but it's the more humane one as well. Both for the future human and the mother.
I've been checking this blog daily, waiting for the next update. I am fascinated by the directions your arguments take Mark. I feel like I got a pretty good sense of who you are during our discussions in Glasgow. And I have to say that I think your abortion post reflected your official political position, not personal reflection. So I'm curious to see what comes next.
Thanks bro. I've been terribly busy. I will put a post up this weekend. I promise.
liar.
Yeah I lied. I'll have one up soon.
And I must respond to agga and say that I sincerely am opposed to abortions except in the case of when they threaten the life of the mother.
Fair enough. Let's move on then.
liar
Having abortion as your headliner for months at a time is a bold choice.
Post a Comment