The old ‘abortion should be safe, legal and rare.’
Yeah, right. If it is safe and legal, it will never be rare. ‘Personally opposed but.’
Somebody said in ‘but’ sentences, forget everything that preceeds the ‘but.’
I have never seen my Bible Class teacher look so astonished as the day I told him I was against abortion.
I’ve shocked him many times, but that stunned him.
(you may have guessed that I’m Episcopalian in a liberal E church)
Wow, that must be a lonely place spiritually. It’s reached the point where certain “churches” act as political tools only with no inner spiritual mission other than some exterior ones that have no moral authority tossed onto the playing field.
Because you know, all things being morally equivalent, we must not cast judgement or lift a finger in opposition.
My own position is that I vehemently oppose abortion as birth control (for convenience) but can understand it for valid medical reasons, such as a fatal defect that will only leave an infant a few hours or days of very painful life. In effect a form of euthanasia, which I also oppose but can understand. I can also understand abortion as a choice when you’re looking at the alternatives between the life of the mother and the life of the baby.
That last hypothetical, however, points out my biggest problem with this question. In that case I would strongly lean to the life of the baby, but can understand, even if I disagree with, those who would choose otherwise.
I just don't feel wise enough to make that choice.
Life is about making choices, some extremely painful. Having driven an ambulance for a living I have been confronted with some impossible choices where there was the issue of life and death on the line. I can tell you it's not easy, but not recognizing that type of situation exists guarantees that bad things will happen through inaction, even if you don't mean it to, so sometimes you have to take on the questions you never want to. The thing is you have to live with those choices afterwards. I think the most compelling argument against Roe v Wade is the testimony of Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of that Supreme Court decision, proclaiming how wrong the decision was and how much she regrets the results of that decision.
But I believe that abortion as birth control should be made a crime.
Now, a viable (if not yet possible) alternative is the removal of the baby from the mother’s womb, but then bringing it to term in an artificial womb. How long will it be before we can do that? Five years? Certainly no more than ten. Now, what are the moral and societal issues raised by that prospect? Many women will argue that it’s “their fetus” therefore they get to deny that option. I would “cry havoc” over that argument, but you know it will be raised.
Then you have the question of who will pay for this child, who will raise it, etc. There are several million abortions around the world each year, around a million in this country. An overwhelming percentage of those abortions are of non-white babies. What does that sort of statistic do to the demographics of this country? Of the world?
There is a truism that I have come to believe in utterly: “you can never do just one thing.”
I have lots of problems with Rudy on lots of issues, abortion and gun control being the biggest. If he had the brains to frame the question in this fashion I believe that he could completely overcome abortion as a liability and win a huge number of votes on both sides of the question. That still wouldn't make him my choice in this next election, but it would go a long way towards convincing me that he can handle complex problems in a constructive fashion. The biggest strike against him, bigger than his stands on these issues, is his inability to handle these questions honestly and in a fashion that will avoid offending the majority of Americans. He failed that test, at least on FNS today.