This may be the most controversial issue I have attempted to discuss on my blog. Taxes (x2), Obamacare, Social Security, even my Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street pales in comparison to the issue of abortion.
Believe it or not, I actually haven’t wanted to post about this issue because it seems like there are no fence sitters out there. Everyone has an opinion and everyone will passionately defend that position.
I was recently asked to contribute some political thoughts on another blog. This is the first thing I wrote for for it. The reason I wrote it is because I wanted to let everyone know that it is possible to be pro-life and have it NOT be because of your religious beliefs. While religion is a perfectly valid reason to believe something, you are not going to get very far in a debate with faith as the only arrow in your quiver. I believe there is a very logical and secular defense of the pro-life position. I tried very hard to stay objective and non-sarcastic. I realize not everyone will agree with me, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
Why I am Pro-Life
On most issues I believe the less government interference, the better. On the issue of abortion I stray from that belief.
Taking religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, I still believe that life begins at conception.
When conception happens and a pregnancy progresses normally, the end product is always a human baby. He is not a dog, or a plant. He won’t grow into a pencil or a book. He will be a human.
The moment sperm meets egg is the only time in which you can pinpoint the beginning of a pregnancy, which will (if left uninterrupted) ultimately become a human being.
Conception is the catalyst or the “big bang” of life beginning, so to speak.
There are obviously those who disagree with that assessment. If I were to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow that conception does not indicate the beginning of a life, then the second instance in which someone could logically say that life begins is when the heart starts beating (which usually happens at about 5 weeks from the start of your last period or 22 days after conception).
It is generally accepted worldwide that when the heart stops beating, someone has died. Therefore, it is logical to infer that when a heart begins beating, a life begins.
Both of my examples are entirely rational reasons why someone would be pro-life regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack thereof).
Another reason why I am pro-life is because I flatly reject the “my body, my choice” mantra. I reject this idea for one simple reason. It’s not your body. It is someone else’s body.
The person growing inside of you (even from before the time when most women find out that they are pregnant) has its own DNA that is entirely separate from yours. If the baby is a boy, he has an entirely different gender. He has his own heart, his own liver, his own stomach, brain and nervous system. He has his own blood supply, eyes, ears, legs, and moves of his own accord.
Some people claim that since a baby cannot survive outside his mother’s womb, that he is not alive. If you take said baby outside of his mother’s womb, what happens? He dies. Non-alive things cannot grow and they cannot die.
If reliance on another person for survival were reason enough to say someone isn’t a person or alive, than why not allow “after birth abortions” as some people advocate? Or why not allow the son of an elderly woman to smother his entirely dependent mother as she slept?
This is not an extreme position. According to a recent Gallup poll, more than half of the US population is Pro-life. Being pro-life puts me right in line with half of the US and therefore does not make me an extremist. If we were to include pro-choice individuals who oppose late-term abortions, those who side with me would increase exponentially.
Contrary to what the MSM will tell you about the Republican position on abortion, this has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to legislate what goes on in the bedroom. I am not a Republican, but based on the issues, I usually vote Republican because their platform more closely reflects what I believe.
First and foremost I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have already explained my belief in the “life” part of this issue.
So do the Republicans believe in liberty or choice? I do. For me (and most of those who support the Republican line on abortion), the question of choice lies not in whether or not you get pregnant, but in whether or not you choose to have sex.
Pregnancy is not a choice; it is a consequence of a choice. There is only one way to get pregnant by accident. When you do not choose that action, only then can you justify asking to be released from the consequences.
While I personally believe that abortion is wrong in all instances except to save the mother’s life (ectopic pregnancies for example would very quickly result in the death of the baby AND the mother) I would not legislate that abortion not be allowed in the cases of rape or incest. Clearly in those cases the “choice” is not yours and while I cannot see myself having an abortion if I were raped, I would not fault any woman who would choose to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape. I can absolutely understand why she would not want to re-live such a violent and traumatic event every day for nearly a year or beyond if she chooses not to place the baby up for adoption. I understand and would support her wish to just move on and heal even though I cannot imagine ever choosing that particular path to healing.
So how do my beliefs translate into the political sphere or legislation?
First of all, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Contrary to the claims of some prominent political figures, putting tighter regulations on abortions would not force women into back alleys and “coat hangers in the bathtub”.
The idea that we can go from a country in which abortions are legal in all fifty states (and in some states legal at any point during the pregnancy) to banning it all together is ludicrous. That is just not how our system of government works.
I can’t think of anyone who claims to be pro-choice say that they are “for abortion”. They say that they are also disturbed at the rising instances of abortion (1 million a year in the United States alone) and agree that adoption would be a far better alternative for unwanted children. Most also claim to be against late term abortions (abortions in which the baby has a chance of survival outside of the womb) and race or gender selective abortion (aborting because it’s a girl and they wanted a boy.)
Given that the left and the right seemingly agree on these issues, I wonder why it is that the left thinks that ANY restrictions on abortion would be a bad thing.
If I were queen, I would do the following (believe it or not, a president can’t do all of these things on their own. Presidents who follow the Constitution must go through Congress):
- I would put a blanket ban on late term abortions for any reason other than the life of the mother. However since babies born at the time when a late term abortion (aka. partial birth abortion) have a chance at survival, I would prefer to not see any late-term abortions at all.
- I would require all doctors in all states to save the life of a baby who survives an abortion (a bill that Obama opposed FOUR times when an Illinois state senator.)
- I would ban race and gender selective abortions (which are far more common than you think).
- I would make the morning-after pill available at no cost to all women who come to a hospital or police station to report a rape and request a rape kit examination. Sometimes we have responsibility thrust upon us, whether we like it or not and as painful as it is, women who have been violated in this way have a responsibility to other women and society in general to report rapes and get those dirt-bags off of the street (if you were not raped and the condom broke, buy the morning-after pill yourself. I am not for “free” contraceptives paid for by taxpayers). I believe that there would be enough money donated by private persons or organizations for this kind of program that little if any taxpayer money would be required to pay the pharmaceutical companies for the morning-after pill for rape victims. Even if taxpayer dollars had to be used, “Plan B” for rape victims would be far less expensive than the subsidies given to Planned Parenthood every year.
- I would ban all non-OBGYN’s from performing abortions (I thought we wanted to keep women OUT of the alleys.
- I would pull all public funding (state or federal) from institutions that perform abortions as a majority of their services (aka Planned Parenthood). The taxpayer should not be forced into paying for something that the majority of Americans oppose nor should they be forced into financially supporting any institution that makes their money off of that something.
- I would NOT require insurance companies to cover abortions. Fewer women would have elective abortions if they had to pay what the procedure actually costs.
- I would require all women seeking an abortion to be informed, in detail, how an abortion is performed (that information alone is enough to stop a huge percentage of abortions) and none of this “it’s just tissue” nonsense.
- I would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would give power back to the states and their ability to ban abortion all together if their state’s population so desires. Like I said before, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, chances are very low that even the reddest of red states would ban it all together. Even if a few did, there are several where it would still be available.
Those are the things that I would do to stop abortions for pregnancies that already have happened. What do we do to stop the unwanted pregnancies to begin with? I’ll give you a hint; the key is NOT making contraception free.
I believe that our country’s obsession with sex is the root cause. We have been spoon-fed sex from the entertainment industry and our children are being exposed to adult related content earlier and earlier. Add that to school sexual education that is written by Planned Parenthood being pushed into our schools and the girl scouts and it is clear to me where the problem starts.
Why is teaching abstinence a bad thing? Why must we teach our children that their sexual identity encompasses the majority of their individual identity, that sex is the most important thing in life and the more you have and the earlier you have it the better?
I could go on and on, but since I this post was supposed to be about abortion and not sex-ed; I’ll stop now.