Replies

When the light at the intersection turns red, the government forces you to wait for a couple of minutes. Likewise, the government forces you not to rob banks, or at least provides some pretty strong disincentives. At any rate, the anti-choice line is specious at best, since we are all anti-choice on many, many matters.

Waiting for a couple of minutes at a red light doesn't have nearly the impact on anyone's life as does being pregnant. Furthermore, the consequences of not waiting at red lights are immediate and obvious to most people. But the analogy does work. If I choose to drive then these are the rules I must follow.

I really would have preferred the case never being brought to the level of federal involvement. I agree with local people determining social rules.

Yes, in abortion a separate, innocent human being is involved. Unfortunately, that human being is entirely housed within and dependent upon an individual woman. The choices allowed to us by nature are to be pregnant or not. Every other relationship we engage in can be terminated. Our government does not involve itself in whether our reasons for terminating are sufficient and does not decide that we must maintain relationships we don't wish to be involved in. Although stable marriages are to society's benefit, most of us don't want the government intimately involved in our marriages.

Given human nature as it is, the demand that one remain pregnant makes it more likely than not that the woman will choose keeping the child over adoption. As counterintuitive as it may sound, many women find it quite a lot easier to get rid of a baby at 6 weeks gestation over giving it away at birth. We are programmed to bond, after all. In some instances, then, the prohibition of abortion becomes, in a sense, a mandate to motherhood and all that that entails. Women WOULD still have a choice. Many would choose adoption. But it isn't a, "do you prefer carrots or green beans?" kind of choice it's a very weighted choice. A lot of women might rise to the challenge.

So, for me, it comes down to personal autonomy vs government force. Because the issues on each side are so weighty (personal freedom versus anothers right to be alive and government making that choice), I prefer to let the people speak and determine their own mores for their communities.

I don't think the issue is so much that abortion has been legal so long that we're used to it. The issue is that we have so much freedom to determine our destiny, be it choosing our job, lifestyle, marital status, relationships with friends and family; that it seems intrusive to me to have the government deciding the issue for us. For "we the people" to decide to place limits on ourselves is a different matter.

In some instances, then, the prohibition of abortion becomes, in a sense, a mandate to motherhood and all that that entails.

Absolutely not. Who is forcing people to fool around and become pregnant in the first place? Teens, and all others have the option to remain chaste. Pregnancy is a logical consequence of actions she chose (except in rape cases, as mentioned earlier). In fact, criminalizing abortion would help make people think about the gravity of the sexual act, its beauty and sacred character.

Essentially we have the following: Since we can terminate other relationships, we ought to be legally sanctioned to terminate the parent-child relationship. Because the child is little and growing inside (my wife), the only way to eliminate him is to remove him, killing him in the process. The mere whims of the mother in choosing relationships supercede the very LIFE of the unborn. Just as the mere whims of "massa" were so infinately more important than the fundamental right to FREEDOM of his slaves. In both cases, might makes right. In both cases, one person is forcing their worldview on another.

You've given a very good reason for the government to protect the unborn: they are weak and vulnerable, unable to defend themselves.

(On a side note, it is interesting that sentiments in the South, with its legacy of segregation and oppression of colored people, are more inclined to defend the unborn. The South has already had its momemnt of oppression. There is a similar phenomena between Germany and the Netherlands, with the former having quite restrictive abortion laws, doubtless more keenly sensitive to the atricities six decades ago.) I don't think the issue is so much that abortion has been legal so long that we're used to it. The issue is that we have so much freedom to determine our destiny, be it choosing our job, lifestyle, marital status, relationships with friends and family; that it seems intrusive to me to have the government deciding the issue for us. For "we the people" to decide to place limits on ourselves is a different matter.

Abortion is incredibly intrusive. It involves softening of the cervix, dilation, and a number of very sharp, very hard instruments. In early trimesters the baby tries desperately to swim away from the aspirator tip, only to be sucked out, piece by piece. check this out. It is an act of unspeakable cruelty. "Whatsover you do to the least of these you do unto me."