Sunday, November 14, 2004

An interesting glimpse at the future
Amidst all this bashing of the MSM, it's necessary to acknowledge that sometimes it does it's job right. There is a piece in the Boston Globe that examines exactly what might happen if Roe is overturned?

For the record, I favor the idea of overturning Roe. I do not believe that there is a constitutional protection for abortion, and that the court overreached in placing that protection under the due process/right to privacy protections. I think that because there is no federal constitutional protection, it must be decided on the state legislature level, short of constitutional amendment. That is my legal opinion.

Now, assuming Roe is overturned, and we revert to abortive rights being decided by state legislatures, I will oppose abortion in Connecticut. Based on my faith, I believe that life begins at conception. Even granting that we cannot establish that fact, I must point out that we cannot disprove it either. As such, it is arrogant to assume that you hold all the answers, and that you have the right to take the risk of committing murder to increase your own comfort. Though until just recently I made an absolute exception in the case of rape, I have more trouble doing so now, as our society is not in the habit of visiting the sins of a parent on his child. Similarly, while I understand the case of exception for the life of the mother, again, I have some difficulty because I believe that abortion is murder, and our society is not in the habit of trading one life to save another. So, I'm undecided on those two points, but overall I have to oppose abortion.

So, you may ask, how I can legislate my own articles of faith onto other people. The answer is simple: that's not what I'm doing--in fact, if you try to prevent me from opposing abortion, then you are forcing your beliefs on me. The fact is, if I believe abortion to be murder, then I have to oppose it at all costs, or consider myself an accessory to murder. If you try and tell me that my reason for opposition, because it is based on religious beliefs, disqualifies me from my position, then you are forcing me to accept your views of my religion over my own.

Either way, that was all a tangent. Read the article I linked to above to see why opposition to Roe is not necessarily opposition to abortion, and why the death of Roe could spell the death of the Republican Party.


Matto said...

Perhaps, I hope, I can sway you to at least accept a life and health exception to an abortion ban. Our society allows this sort of "trade" in one other notable context: one can defend themselves with deadly force if they fear death or great bodily harm from an attacker. Also, animals are often harmed or killed in research to save human lives. Depending on how you feel about capital punishment, and many religious people are for it, a life can be taken as punishment for a crime because it will, presumably, produce positive effects for society.

I'm pro-abortion myself, so it is hard for me to imagine asking a woman to die or suffer a debilitating harm by carrying a child to term. But I know you feel differently, so maybe just ask yourself if abortion is really murder in those circumstances, since there is no malice and there is certainly remorse. Just some thoughts.

Anonymous said...

I don’t believe one can legitimately make an exception to the abortion law. Either you view it as murder, and therefore are against it, or you don’t, and therefore let the decision rest in the hands of the individual woman. Making rape an exception only says that you believe you should be able to make someone a victim because someone made you a victim. This, of course, is completely unjust, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Similarly, you cannot refrain from the “murder” label on abortion simply because there was some “remorse” and no “malice.” I’ve seen convicted murders show no remorse (Scott Peterson) and I’ve known people convicted of homicide that didn’t do it intentionally (drunk drivers.) I believe those who are pro-capital punishment but anti-abortion are justified because they don’t believe in killing an INNOCENT life. Further, you can’t prove that a woman will die from childbirth, or that the child’s life would be better unlived. Only about 3.3% of abortions are done because of risk to fetal health, and only 2.8% are done because of maternal health. That leaves a whole lot of women doing it because a child isn’t convenient for them, which isn’t a legitimate reason for such a crime. Of course, I am also an advocate of adoption, seeing how many children are wanted by barren couples.

However, the issue is not whether we as individuals will get or won’t get an abortion ourselves. It’s whether the policy makers should constitutionally make abortion legal or not. This means we need to think of what’s best for society as a whole. Condoning abortion will inevitably make women less responsible and more likely to use it as an extreme form of birth control. It shows an overall disregard for life and makes murder for personal gain acceptable. YOU may not get one, but right now well over a million are performed every year in America and over 46 MILLION internationally. These are mostly young women who basically didn’t plan ahead and won’t take responsibility. Should an innocent life pay for their poor decisions? Certainly not.

-- Ashley