It sounds sad I know, but this was inspired by the murder of Doctor George Tiller. No actually, its been a long time in the making. As I read news articles and listen to the talking heads argue back and forth about why abortion should or shouldn't be legal I can't help but wounder at what the right answer is.
I'm creating this blog with the hope of sparking serious Civil, GROWNUP debate. I hope that this isn't to lofty an idea in this era of "written in stone belief". I choose the name Brownism from the what my Grandmother used to call "the since to come in out of the rain" common since by another name, which seems to be lacking from our dealings with one another these days.
Here's the Brownism
Pro-Choice
As I understand it, is the right of the a women to make her own decision about her reproductive freedom. Ranging from how she would prevent pregnancy all the way to how she would terminate pregnancy.
Pro-Life
The position that all life has the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. The belief that life begins at conception and terminating a life before it is born is murder and should be illegal.
Does a woman have a right to terminate her pregnancy? I don't know. Here's what I do know. As a man I have never been nor will I ever be, barring a kidnapping and experimentation by a mad scientist, pregnant. As a man my body will never change because I'm pregnant, I will never run the risk of becoming a single mother nor will I ever risk my life to give birth. Man that's heavy, and makes me appreciate my testicles even more. As a man my DUTY is to take responsibility for my child. DUTY however is a choice, I know at this point someone wants to point out that sex is a choice also. I would have to agree but more on the duty and sex later. Does a woman have the right to choice to terminate her pregnancy is the subject of this discussion. Considering property law answer must be yes. One of the rights of property is the right of disposal. As an owner I have the right to disposal of my property as I please. This sounds like I have just reduced children to the level of a ham sandwich. I haven't, you see we have the right to do to our bodies what we want. Piercing, coloring, altering and changing our sex as we can afford to. So why then is abortion different, because we BELIEVE that life begins at conception. The argument that life begins at conception is flawed and rendered moot by the word BELIEF. Belief is a dangerous human condition that can and has enticed us to do the most uncompromisable deeds to one another. It was a belief that people of African decent had no soul and thus perfect candidates for slaves, It was a belief that German Jews had a conspiracy to rob that nation of it's wealth and sovereignty that lead to the holocaust, it was believed that by killing a Hollywood couple in their home and blaming it on African-Americans that would start a race war, it was a belief that Americans would invade the Holly Land that led to the killing of over 3000 people and it was a belief that led to the killing of Doctor George Tiller. The problem with belief is that it is not based in fact. A belief is conjecture, a feeling that something is real. Sometimes feelings are correct and at other times they are not. We all have had these feeling and have tried to no end to discern when they are right or not. The vast majority of us have decided not to live our lives solely by these feeling because of there unpredictability. We don't belief that the table is solid we KNOW the table is solid because of the evidence that the table itself gives. We cannot easily pass object through it. We belief that the sky is blue because of our perception but the reality is that it's not blue we are wrong to believe so but we do anyway. Now a person that beliefs that life is precious has taken a life, please read that bit again. If life is so precious then why do we still have a death penalty? Why does not every parent less child have people stepping up to be their parents? Why do we kill over a belief? Just some food for thought
You knew I'd have to comment......:-}......
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I find it interesting that you entitle your post "The Truth" and then proceed to tell us that what we believe may not be true. Maybe you just “believe” that it’s “The Truth”. In which case……...... Oh well, just an interesting side note......
I think your definitions of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are fairly accurate. After that, you start to slide. I think it's fair to say that this particular issue is mostly divided on religious lines. Not to say that there aren't "religious" people who are pro-choice, and non-religious people who are pro-life, but generally speaking, if you are a person of strong faith, meaning that your faith guides you on a daily basis, you would more likely fall into the pro-life camp, and if you’ve never considered faith to be a part of your daily life, you would be more likely to be pro-choice.
Now, why is that? Well, let me state that I have lived on both sides of this issue. When I was younger, and more agnostic in my faith, my thought patterns were more along the lines of “…as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life, I don’t care what you do.” I didn’t really have a moral compass by which I lived my life. The decisions I made, as long as they “didn’t interfere with others”, were mine and mine alone. As I got older, and became a Christian, I realized that the nature of human beings made it impossible to make decisions without affecting others. Every decision we make is going to affect someone. Therefore, unless you were to poll everyone affected by your decision before you made it, and got everyone’s buy-in on your decision, the theory of “…as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life, I don’t care what you do”, goes right down the toilet.
Now I know that someone will disagree with me, but it’s true. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, or the other “social issue” discussions that we have that divide our nation. Abortion does affect me, even though I've never had any personal involvement, other than a relative who had one. It hurts me to think that 1.2 million babies every year will never enjoy the sunshine, or a Happy Meal, or growing up to maybe be President of the United States some day.
...to be continued
George Tiller’s murder was deplorable, no doubt. If Scott Roeder pulled the trigger, he should pay the price. Should it be the death penalty? I don’t know the answer to that. Scott Roeder is an adult, who apparently (as far as we can tell at this point) knew what he was doing. He was not one of the 60,000 innocent unborn babies who Tiller chose to terminate. I understand the debate of abortion vs. the death penalty. What I don’t understand is where the empathy comes from that will defend a murderer’s right to live and not an innocent child's right to life.
ReplyDeleteIs it the issue of convenience? I believe it is. Most people who support abortion support it not because they truly believe that a woman has a right to control her own body, it’s because they want to make sure that the option is there for them if an “unexpected surprise” should occur. The proof? Over 67% of all abortions are performed on women who have never been married. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html Over 50% of abortions are performed on women in their 20’s. Logic would lead us to believe that these would be women who are sexually active but not in a position (income, marital status, etc.) to raise a child. Therefore, keeping abortion legal as a “contraceptive” would benefit them.
This is an issue that will never be agreed on by the masses. Our society has become too selfish and self-centered to resolve it. We have to quit making decisions based on how we feel about things, and start making them based on what's right. I do believe however, that since 93% of all abortions are performed because the child is unwanted, that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the issue should be dealt with at the state level, just like the issue of same-sex marriage. It should not, however, be decided by a panel of judges, but by the people. If the people of California vote to allow abortion in any instance, I will stand by that. But if the people of Texas say no, than that should stand as well. These are not federal issues. This falls under the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people).
I do have “beliefs” about abortion, but I’ve also provided some facts that I hope will shed some light on the issue. Let’s get back to making people responsible for their actions. 1.2 million abortions a year is a travesty…………..
The conservative stalker shows up ;-)
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts on abortion. For a long time I had the same thought process as Alonzo did, that since I'm not a woman I have no right to an opinion on abortion. But I read something that pointed out that nobody questions my right to have strong opinions on murder, rape, burglary etc. even though I've never done those things.
As a society we've decided it's not ok to kill, even if someone has harmed you deeply, and it's not ok to steal even if your family is hungry. So why do we spend so much time in the abortion debate focused on the circumstances of the pregnant woman? We don't do that when deciding other issues.
And then there's the point of whether we have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies. As is the case with most things, the answer is yes... most of the time. But again, as a society we've decided that it's not ok to put cocaine in your system, even if you're sitting at home getting high by yourself. So it's not accurate to say that you can always do what you want with your body.
And finally the question of when life begins. It seems to me that this is THE question. It seems to me that this is the only thing that matters. If life begins at conception, then a woman has no more right to end that pregnancy then she has to end the life of a 6 month old baby with downs syndrome. Modern science shows us through ultra-sound that a baby has all it's organs functioning by 6 weeks of gestation. In my mind, that alone makes the case that life begins at conception. From the time of conception until death, it's just a growing, aging process. So let's look at the question from the other angle, if life doesn't begin at conception, then when? Is there something magical that happens to bestow life as the baby is born? Is it when the brain starts to function? It seems obvious to me that this is the question that has to be answered before any other. These are not questions of belief, that can just be set aside as one person's opinion, they are questions of science. And finally, if we can't answer the question of when life begins, don't we have an obligation as a supposedly civilized society to give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn? Kind of like the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. Seems to me we should assume the unborn are fully human, until it's proven otherwise.
Just my 2 cents...
Well, I went on kind of long, maybe it's 6 cents worth :-)