Posted on 01/22/2003 8:00:21 AM PST by no other way out
Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, because basically tonight's topic is a minefield - Abortion. I couldn't be anymore on tiptoes if the show was being produced by George Balanchine. This is the Big Debate, and I'm talking bigger than who was the better Darren on Bewitched. Abortion is our nation's "Final Jeopardy," and I'll wager, Alex, that if our nation fights another Civil War, it will be about this. And I would remind you that this all from my perspective, the male perspective, a one-step-removed perspective, because I will obviously never have to decide on whether or not I should have an abortion. And by the way, my belief is that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be easier to get than food poisoning in Moscow. Having men decide the fate of a woman's reproductive system makes about as much sense as asking Quentin Crisp to coach the Raiders. All right, enough qualifying, let's get on with it. There's no doubt that passions run high on both sides, and this issue has created a divide in this country not seen since Carly Simon last yawned in public. The prevailing opinions on a woman's freedom to choose are going further to the right than a Greg Norman tee shot.
Pro-life activists attempt to paint anyone pro-choice as having no morals. On the other side of the ledger, pro-choicers are tagging pro-lifers as crazed and backward bible-thumpers bent on running the lives of the people who disagree with them. The truth, as always, is, the case of human endeavors lies somewhere in between. As much as the advance scouts on either side of this issue might not want to admit it, good people do get abortions and other good people are pained by their decision to get one.
Where do I stand? Well, I'm like most of you, I presume, I think there are far too many abortions performed in this country. And I also believe that at the end of the day, as much as I might disapprove, none of them are really any of my business. Look, there are always going to be arguments on this issue. The debate will rage until the end of time no matter what the whim of the Papal infallibility or the politics of the decade. But the simple truth is, that such a passionate and personal decision dictates that the choice be left to the individual. And you know, that's really all we can do, because we're just human beings, stumbling around in the dark, trying to get to the bathroom and kicking the shit out of our shins on the way there.
Now there's some things all right-minded human beings should agree on. We should all agree that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk -- that's just common sense. But excluding that obvious assumption, everything else in the abortion arena is "in play." There are many quagmires complicating this issue. Religion. Now it seems that religion is most often the backboard for every bank shot put up by someone making it their business to get into your business. Roman Catholic doctrine forbids abortion. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Right-to-life proponents contend that abortion is immoral. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Another pothole on the road to a sensible resolution to abortion is "when does life begin?" At conception? When a heartbeat is detected? At the first drawn breath? You know, for me it wasn't until last Tuesday. Until then I was just a sperm with an accountant! Okay, so those are the variables, and there are obviously millions more variables that make each individual case unique. But the more you think about it, and the more it makes your head spin, and the more confused you get trying to figure out someone else's life for them, it becomes increasingly apparent that it has to be the call of the individual who is pregnant, because the collective, one way or another, won't have to suffer the consequences of that most personal of all decisions.
My fellow Americans, it is time to suck it up. Look deep into your immortal soul (if you believe you have one) and do the right thing. Have the courage and strength to live your own life, by your own standards, and stop trying to call the shots for everyone else. We all live with glaring inconsistencies, and sometimes, when you see something going on right in front of you that offends you to the very core of your being, sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away, because you know that's exactly what you would want them to do for you. There's only one judge on all this and that's God. And you don't get to meet him until you go backstage after the play is over. And believe me, you do not want to get a "thumbs down" from the guy who created thumbs, all right? In the interim, everybody has got to tend their own garden vis-a-vis abortion. And remember, when it comes to your body, only you wear the robes, and only you carry the gavel.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The issue is at what point should the government use its guns to force a person to not endanger the life of another person. Where you or I draw the line on when it becomes a "little person" is simply one answer in the debate. I'm not pretending to know the answer. I believe Miller's point is that each persons "answer" should be their own solution (within reason - I believe it is, almost, universally accepted that abortion should not occur after the baby is capable of surviving on its own) and that that person must answer to their own God.
Since one out of two pregnancies end in miscarriage, what do you call that? God's choice?
That must make for a lot of "gods" - and just as many versions of right and wrong.
You make a good point. Should the religious beliefs of individuals who believe in a particular "God" be the guiding principle in the abortion issue? Or should it be based on something more objective?
Hint: if you say 20%, you are too high.
Quandary: in your opinion, does preventing implantation through physical barrier or medication constitute the taking of a life?
NOt everything that happens in this world is "God's choice." We have a Free Will.
Since some children are miscarried early, for a variety of natural reasons, is it then OK to artificially induce miscarriages?
People have heart attacks naturally every day and die. Is it therefore OK to artificially induce heart attacks in people?
SD
Well, Dennis, this might not be your business but it's my business. The slaughter of millions of babies or would be babies is everybody's business. We will all be called into account of our actions, or inactions before an almighty God. To fail to speak out or oppose this evil is to passively permit it, and thus be as guilty as those who champion the cause.
I can't stop someone from getting an abortion, but I sure as hell want the government to stop using my money to pay for it.
But you see, we can't be laissez fair about the life of the smallest, weakest, most needy and vulnerable of us, and have any hope of regarding ourselves as a civilized society.
And my honest question is why we should respect the opinion of anyone who says, "Yeah yeah, sure: different DNA, heartbeat, brainwaves, human child -- but I still want to kill it, and to do that I have to not care about the rest, so... I don't care about the rest!" Seriously, why should we respect that opinion any more than we would respect the opinion of someone who says "I personally believe as an article of religious faith that any fourteen year old who eats too much and has a surly attitude is, by definition, not human, and so, since he's as much a part of my body as he was at 4 months, I believe I have the right to 'terminate parenthood' [i.e. kill him]."
We wouldn't respect that viewpoint. It's meritless, and clearly invented for the indulgence of the would-be parenthood-terminator. Just like the pro-abort position!
Dan
This is done all the time when the fetus is either dead or will die. D&C's are a prime example of artificially inducing miscarriages when the fetus has already died.
People have heart attacks naturally every day and die. Is it therefore OK to artificially induce heart attacks in people?
Not sure of your point here but unless there is a valid medical reason for inducing a heart attack (I beleive there is some procedure that does this in order to correct a problem) then no, it is not okay as it violates that persons right to life.
My point to the poster was that not "every" union of sperm and egg results in a man or woman.
My point is this: it is impossible to draw a bright line, even if one takes the basic "life begins at conception" approach. If life begins at conception, I've had about 18 miscarried children, that I know about. I don't believe that. If life begins at conception, more children are miscarried than are born. If that is true, can one really say that life begins at conception? Life begins at conception, and, more likely than not, ends shortly thereafter? No. You can believe that. I don't.
If life begins at conception, use of an IUD is abortion. If life begins at conception, smoking by the woman, which decreases the quality of the uterine lining and therefore the chance of implantation, could be considered an attempt at abortion.
If you can't draw the line at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (and I don't think you can), then you just can't draw a line until viablity, at least. That's my point.
Personally, I completely agree with you. I do not respect their decision either. However, that is not at issue. The issue is should the police power of the government be used to keep a person from depriving another person of their life when the definition of a "person" has no answer? In the latter example, virtually everyone recognizes that we are talking about killing a living person. In the former, we will debate it until Kindom Come.
Honestly, I have no answer. I know what I believe but that is different from many. It is the sole issue with the libertarian philosophy that I have been unable to reconcile.
You're issue is not abortion but a self worth issue....resolve that then you can contemplate outside issues without bias....
You control your life and where it goes, not any male your involved with.
For example, I could be staunchly pro-abortion and I can assure you that my wife would never be swayed.
The issue is the child and not the woman's body or imposing control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.