That's really in the end what this is about. It if were merely about the residents of South Dakota deciding they wanted their legislature to make abortion illegal, they would have created a law that they knew would meet the current federal consitutional requirements. Or they would have tried to change the constitution of South Dakota.
If you read this article from the Argus Leader News in South Dakota it states the following:
One way or another - federal court case or citizen referendum - the bill South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed on Monday has almost no chance of becoming law on July 1.
A court challenge that could reach almost as far into the future as Rounds' 2010 vision for South Dakota would be a national affair, potentially culminating at the Supreme Court.
Or a drive to collect 16,728 signatures to force a public vote next November would thrust the fiery issue of abortion into South Dakota's political arena in a way that might make legislative debate on the issue look like a high-school debate tournament.
I think it's also important that some stats be looked at as far as South Dakota. About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, from what I understand there is only one abortion clinic in the state and doctors are flown into to perform these abortions. In South Dakota the 2000 statistics are 5 abortions per 1,000 females of reproductive age, compared with 21.3 per 1,000 females nationally. The numbers do not appear to have changed much in 2002.
This Denver Post article points out clearly that there was even prior to this bill limited options for those seeking an abortion. In part:
Even if the new legislation is tied up in a years-long court battle leading to the Supreme Court, South Dakota is already among the hardest states in the country in which to get an abortion.
The last local doctor to regularly provide the procedure, who carried a Colt .45 and wore body armor, retired 10 years ago.
Now, the identities of doctors flown to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls once a week from Minneapolis are kept secret.
South Dakota's birth rate numbers from the CDC for 2002 (rates are live births per 1,000 estimated population in each area; fertility rates are live births per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years estimated in each area; total fertility rates are sums of birth rates for 5-year age groups multiplied by 5; birth rates by age are live births per 1,000 women in specified age group estimated in each area. Populations estimated as of July)
Number of births: 10,698 (Nationally 4,021,726)
Birth rate: 14.1 (13.9)
Fertility rate: 68.3 (64.8)
Total Fertility rate: 2,186.0 (2,013.0)
Total Teenage Rate 15-19: 38.0 (43.0)
15-17: 17.3 (23.2)
18-19: 67.8 (72.8)
So what does this all mean? It is already difficult to get an abortion in South Dakota and has been for quite some time without that seeming to be of interest to most people until this ban was put thru. It appears the real purpose of the ban is not to make abortion illegal in South Dakota as much as it is to try to create a situation were Roe V Wade is overturned. Given the small number of abortions already performed in South Dakota and the fact there is only one abortion clinic, if the real purpose would have been to further reduce abortions the bill could have been written in a manner that would have done this and not been so easy to challenge legally. Finally? Despite all of the discussion, the chances of this law actually taking affect in July is slim to none. However, anti-abortion groups and pro-choice groups will use this as a way to solicit funds.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
46 comments:
I think it will do more harm to the pro-life movement than anything. Gradual attacks and change are the best strategy, but this is going to force the whole issue to be resolved at once. And another loss for the pro-life movement in the SCOTUS would be devastating.
That's a possible outcome of this. Given the small number of abortions statewide if they actually cared about preventing unwanted pregnancy it'd be a great situation to see how increasing availability of birth control helped. But of course the focus is going to be on just the abortion issue.
This is only going to inflame an already hostile topic. Personally, I believe that abortion is murder, but so is killing doctors and blowing up clinics. The extremists on both sides are making things hard for everyone involved in this debate.
My solution is to keep abortion legal, but make it very difficult to get and make adoption easier to do. Since most people in this country take the path of least resistance, more women would opt for adoption. Hell, give them a tax break while we are at it.
Of course stopping unwanted pregnancies is an issue as well. The whole idea of giving out birth control in high schools is irresponsible. Like all kids, and teenagers are still kids, they are able to get something that they don't understand that well, they want to try it out. The free condom policy, to me, is just the lazy parent way out. We, as a seocity, want to get more things, make more money, and have more fun, we lose sight that we need to help our kids grow up into responsible adults. I know that I am a little idealistic in saying these things, but if people start doing those things, maybe the abortion issue wouldn't be sych a hot topic for people and we can get on to trying to help each other more.
It all comes down to the parents and I am trying to do my part, even with the crazy schedule I am keeping. Ok, rant over.
My high school didn't hand out condoms, but people didn't seem to be without. The difference would have been a little education when trying to get a condom instead of a store clerk nodding and winking or frowning at you based on their age.
I think our current economic and health care problems are forms of murder. I think the ill thought out and planned war on drugs is murder ot at least leads to it.
I am more of the mind that we take care of those who are already alive first
I'd rather have birthcontrol available to high schoolers than have them end up pregnant. One of the primary reasons teenage pregnancy is on the decrease isn't because they have stopped having sex it's because of the increased use in birth control.
Now, I'd rather be involved in that decision as a parent, but I also see 15 year old girls who are pregnant because they didn't talk to their parents or their parents didn't talk to them. Just yesterday Erin came home and told me that one of her friends little sister who is 15 is pregnant. Nor is this the first time, this 15 year old is having the baby but all three of the girls know people who have both had babies and abortions. Alot more than I'd like to see happen.
It is a hard decision as a parent because you don't want to come across as giving open permission yet you also realize that just telling them to say no doesn't always work. I still believe the way to reduce abortion isn't to increase adoption it's increase prevention of the pregnancy in the first place. Now, if that doesn't happen should adoption be promoted more than abortion? Yes, but the reality is most of these women who have abortions probably are not going to consider adoption even if they get a tax cut. They dont want their family or friends to know they were pregnant, they don't feel they can handle the pregnancy or the baby, they don't think they could carry a baby for nine months and give it away, are just some of the reasons I've heard as to why they don't consider adoption.
South Dakota has made abortion harder for quite some time, now I haven't checked to see what the adoption rate was, that might be something to see if there is a stat on to see if that has been something that is higher. But their teenage pregancy stats are a bit below the national average.
Perhaps I'm reading your statistic wrong (I am just recovering from a migraine), but it looks like SD's approach is more successful than the nation's, since less teens are getting pregnant in SD than average. Tell me if I'm reading that wrong.
Sorry you have a migraine...and nope you are not reading the stats wrong, they have a lower number of abortions, and the teenage birth rate is lower than the national average. The overall number of pregancies per 1,000 is only slightly higher than the national average - SD is 14.1 the national average is 13.9 for over all birth rate.
I haven't been able to locate adoption numbers yet to see if those are higher.
Giving children who want to play adult is telling them that this is okay, but is a very dangerous message to be sending th the most fertile demographic on the planet.
We should be sending the message that this kind of adult behavior is best left to real adults for a reason, and should be actively discouraged by children in the strongest way possible.
Yeah, I know it is foolish for me to think that this will stop them, but it is more realistic than saying they're going to do it anyway and then supply them with the means for that kind of adult activity.
So crucify me, my children are adults (32 & 30) and have yet to become parents; their time to do so is still in their future, and we can wait to become grandparents.
As for South Dakota, I agree that they should approach this issue more gradually.
I agree giving them "permission" isn't a preferred primary step, however not giving them any information doesn't seem to work, hence the 15 year old I just found out about and the others who have either had babies or abortions. They all seem to share one common idea that it couldn't happen this "one time". I'd rather have mine postpone that "one time" but if that "one time" is going to happen? I'd rather have the chances of pregnancy be minimized. It's a difficult decision and one I struggled with as a parent. However, better to struggle with it the way I have than to have had to struggle with helping one of my daughters be that 15 year old.
Ironically, I just found out that I'm going to be a grandmother, my son's wife is pregnant.
This isn't promising though...
1 being the best,
South Dakota ranks 17th among states in percent of babies born at low birthweight.
South Dakota ranks 31st among states in infant mortality.
South Dakota ranks 34th among states in the percent of children who are poor.
South Dakota ranks 44th among states in per pupil expenditures.
South Dakota ranks 46th among states in the percent of babies born to mothers who received
early prenatal care.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/childreninthestates/sd.pdf
Okay that link didn't work
:-)
Or maybe that's not so bad.
A child in Ohio is abused or neglected every 10 minutes
A child in Ohio is born into poverty every 21 minutes
A child in Ohio dies before his or her first birthday every 8 hours
A child or teen in Ohio is killed by gunfire every 4 days
A child in South Dakota is abused or neglected every 2 hours
A child in South Dakota is born into poverty every 4 hours
A child in South Dakota dies before his or her first birthday every 5 days
A child or teen in South Dakota is killed by gunfire every month
I guess it compares to which state, and mine appears to be worse than South Dakota
"...and nope you are not reading the stats wrong..."
Since there are lower abortion rates and lower rates of unwanted pregnancies (at least, presuming from the teen rates) than perhaps we shouldn't be slamming SD so much as looking at what they do different.
Granted, I do NOT think a doctor's life should be put in danger because he provides abortion services (his soul is a whole 'nother matter entirely), but the stigma against abortion and the difficulty in getting one does seem to be a successful model. If it could be improved upon... then I think we'd all win.
I wasn't trying to slam South Dakota, except on the basis of this latest ban which is not designed to reduce abortions as much as it is to challenge Roe V Wade. That's why I started with the stats because most of the discussion out there is focused on this being something new when it has been hard to have an abortion in South Dakota for quite some time and with only one abortion clinic for the whole state? It's obvious from the stats this has not created a higher percentage of teen or non-teen pregnancies for that matter. Especially when you consider the small number of abortions being done in South Dakota to begin with. Which most people don't seem to realize as a part of this either.
"Ironically, I just found out that I'm going to be a grandmother, my son's wife is pregnant."
Congratulations Lisa!!! :-)
If you'd like, I can give you my mom's e-mail and she can give you pointers about how to deal with the "I'm not OLD enough to be a grandma!" feeling.
:-)
"Especially when you consider the small number of abortions being done in South Dakota to begin with."
Though, I do wonder about that, Lisa...
This isn't meant as a dig, but the "liberal stance" is typically that if abortions aren't legal and readily available they're just going to happen in an alley somewhere...you seem to be deviating from that stance with your acceptance of these numbers. Is that intentional?
I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, not that it really matters how I feel about it yet since it's going to happen anyway - lol.
I'm going to be 46 this month so I suppose I am old enough to be a grandmother.
I would have liked them to have been married longer but? I didn't exactly wait that long when I was married either so I basically have to just shut up and wish them the best. My never ending wish that mine never go thru some of what I did, yet? All I can do is give advice and love them whether they listen or not.
:-)
And, SD statistics really don't sound that bad, in comparison, though I'm sure we'd all like them to be even better as well as our own. It's a model that can be improved on, certainly, but perhaps it's a model worth taking a closer look at all the same.
I don't think I have the traditional liberal stance when it comes to abortion. From a religion standpoint I don't accept it, nor could I ever have one, however I don't think I have the right to tell another woman she should have to carry a child because of my beliefs. I think the focus should be on prevention, so while I don't agree with abortion being illegal as far as national policy it doesn't appear as far as South Dakota goes from a statistical standpoint that illegal abortions have been a huge issue. In a state that had more clinics and a higher number of yearly abortions? Perhaps, but I'm not sure it will ever come to that.
You'll do spledidly, Lisa! I know you will!
:-)
My mom was a few years younger, but there was absolutely no lag time with us. I got pregnant on my wedding night. My doctor, re-checked his figures and was amazed...he didn't think that really happened.
:-)
I'd also point out I'm a hypocrite when it comes to my religion's stance on birth control where it concerns my daughters. Granted they aren't Catholic and I am but it was something I struggled with as part of how I came to the position I did, and I don't regret it.
That happened to me with my second marriage when I had Megan, she was born exactly 9 months after we got married. I was married about a year before I got pregnant with my son who was my first. They'll be married a year this summer.
"I don't think I have the traditional liberal stance when it comes to abortion."
No, I know you don't. Which is partially why we can debate over it so amicably, because I'm not so staunchly anti-abortion that we rankle each other too much over it.
;-)
It was more of a feeling-you-out (versus feel-you-up, see, I can play that game, too!) question, since I hadn't really ever heard your take on it, that I can recall.
I've never gotten a straight answer as far as birth control goes from my religion. We're very much a "be fruitful and multiply" sort of people, but considering how my efforts in that regard have turned out I'm just not ready to willfully have more children. If it happens, it happens and I'll be glad, because I'd love to have more children...wanting isn't the problem...it's our being able to handle it that I doubt.
Birth control is better than "oops!" from just about any perspective, however I know that not talking about the consequences of sex with teenagers is a mistake. And, it's not even the pregnancies that really gets to me, personally. They are relatively rare compared to how many teens are actually having sex. But, the emotional damage of being in a sexual relationship before you are emotionally prepared to handle the fall-out can have devestating effects on a person's sexuality for the rest of their lives, and most teens have no clue. Some would ignore it anyway, but they should at least be told.
I've gotten into it on watch blog but I do typically avoid it where I know it won't be civil. It's not popular to state you don't believe the whole OMG abortion will become illegal and women will die in the back alleys if Roe V Wade is overturned!
Even if Roe V Wade is overturned, abortion won't become illegal, it may in some states but not quite the doomsday scenario many promote. My main bitch with it is the millions of dollars both sides spend on fighting each other that could be used to not only prevent pregnancy but to help mothers who need pre-natal care as well as other reasons some decide to abort in the first place not a worry.
That I am proud that at least so far I have managed to get my daughters thru. I was raped at 14 and ended up with some major issues concerning that as my introduction into sexual relationshps. My daughters that have decided they are ready at least have done it with the knowledge they are prepared and were involved in a serious relationship. My son was also not one of those types who took sex lightly. So I'll take that as a trade off versus any problems God may have with me later for the birth control issue.
:-)
"It's not popular to state you don't believe the whole OMG abortion will become illegal and women will die in the back alleys if Roe V Wade is overturned!"
lmao... I know I shouldn't, but I couldn't help it!
Yeah, I agree. Even for those of us who want to make abortion as illegal as is beneficial, the war won't be won with R v W.
And the wasted money is just awful, I agree. There's so many better ways to handle this. Luckily, we're not paying for this little debate, so it's not hypocritical of us to say so.
;-)
Yes, rape is very difficult to overcome. First at ten than again at fourteen...and it messed me up. But, it doesn't have to be rape to make for a bad experience, and that's more what I was talking about.
I'd love to live in a world where abortion was something that was rare, and if merely making it illegal would make that happen? I'd feel differently. I'd love every baby to be wanted and there to be no hunger or children in foster care because they were abused.
I just see things like the WIC program being cut and then know that this whole South Dakota thing is going to be used as a fundraising tool by both sides and it bugs me. Then again, wasting money on things like this and political campaigns doesn't seem to bother as many people as it does us. Which to me is the saddest part of all of this. I can't help wondering how many lives could have been spared some pretty harsh moments....
Yeah, but wasting money seems to be a rather natural bi-product of capitalism...unfortunately. Remember the singing condoms?
People helping people is supposed to be what religion is about, at least our religions. But... for all to many it gets lost to the way-side like so many other good things. We do what we can, sometimes that's all we can do.
That's true and had it not been for my religion I would not be where I am right now as far as emotional status. But it's the idealist in me that sees how easy it would be to make things better for so many others.
Religion and charity versus what we have today is a topic I should get into. Now that would probably end up being interesting.
Take you and I as an example, we don't have as much as others have yet I know for a fact that you go out of your way to help others.
:-)
I know what you mean... I always find it very interesting when people wearing designer suits tell me they couldn't possibly afford to be charitable.
Wow - talk about learning from one another. Thanks for an excellent a post and wonderful commenters (you included).
Thanks Jill, when Stephanie and I get on a roll? We cover most every aspect of an issue. And of course the guys made some good comments too...
:-)
I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I would like a world where there were no abortions, but I would also like a world with no homeless, poor, or sick.
"I would like a world where there were no abortions, but I would also like a world with no homeless, poor, or sick."
And the only way to make that happen is to work together, give up what doesn't work, and develop what will.
I am late commenting..my apologies.
I think that the anti-abortion movement is happy with the work of SD, Mississippi and soon Ohio and their outlawing of all abortions, save to save the mother. Which is the rarest of all abortions.
The idea is to re-argue the case before SCOTUS and make it a states right issue, as we all agree it should be.
I think this attempt from SD, Miss, Ohio, Indiana and TN might just work.
They probably are happy with it OG, and if merely making abortion illegal would be a solitary solution that would be something. However, given the increasing cuts in WIC and other entitlement programs creating a situation where more children are born without proper pre-natal care and to mothers who cannot afford to care for them and an already over taxed foster care situation, I hope that Ohio doesn't follow in SD's footsteps. SD is trying to eliminate 800 abortions which is only going to make their yearly birthrate around 11,500. 32,180 abortions were reported for Ohio residents in 2003, there are approximately 150,000 babies born each year in Ohio. 46,867 of these births were paid for by Medicaid.
Ohio abortion stats
If you look at the TANF budget even if half of the abortions in Ohio resulted in full term births where the family needed assistance it's going to require additional spending from Ohio since federal dollars are being cut. So merely making abortion illegal isn't going to solve the problem. Making birth control more affordable for the age group that is currently having the most abortions, providing no or low cost pre-natal care and increasing financial assistance or adoption resources has to also be included in any realistic program aimed at reducing or eliminating abortion.
TANF budget
Steph- I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to think. I do not work well with closed minds and people who can't rationalize that compromise may be necessary. My main problem is that attacking abortion does nothing to solve the larger societal issues and does nothing to improve the conditions in America.
I also just have a feeling that if the abortion fight is won by pro-lifers, they will not start a battle against poverty or disease, but against issues like same sex marriage.
It is true that SD has a low abortion rate, but they have very restrictive laws already and only one clinic. Have you ever driven across South Dakota? It is like drivign through Kansas with buffalo
We are on almost the same wave length me4. If we can't afford to help those who need help now, that just doesn't seem logical to me to assume merely making abortion illegal isn't going to have deeper repercussions, especially for larger states.
me4,
I'm willing to work, willing to think and willing to compromise. That was rather my point. However, I do not and cannot accept state-funded murder as a reasonable and legal substitute for good sense and responsibility. I do care a great deal about other women and impoverished children, but I cannot condone the sacrifice of a life because people are unwilling to take responsibilities for their actions. I do NOT know all the solutions that will make for a truly ideallic society, but I do know that mass murder isn't one of them.
In that sense, I'm one of the "pro-lifers" that you stereotypically described. However, since I'm EQUALLY interested in discovering effective ways to improve the lives of these children and their parents AFTER they are born, I don't fit the stereotype in the least. I have yet to actually meet a single pro-lifer who DOES fit that stereotype, though I am repeatedly assured by many a liberal out there who happily tell me they are the prevalent sort. Somehow that opinion seems more based on prejudice and bias than fact, ironic isn't it?
"My main problem is that attacking abortion does nothing to solve the larger societal issues and does nothing to improve the conditions in America."
And, my problem is that condoning murder doesn't improve anything either. The lives of these women who go through the traumatic experience of abortion due to tight financial straits are not being improved. They're simply not being dis-improved by the baby. The pychological damage done by aborting her child isn't treated, she's not given the means to improve her own life and/or the lives of her living children, and she's not being prepared to make more sound decisions in the future. It's like "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" in the reverse. And yet...somehow...this is supposed to be a favor for the women in question?
Oh, and I've driven through SD...though we ran into (almost literally) goats, not buffalo. They licked our windows. Yes, SD is a pretty spread out state, but it has it's cities too. People are quite capable of having unprotected sex in SD and conceiving unwanted babies.
Lisa,
I assume you realize this, but...
"If we can't afford to help those who need help now..."
It's not so much a matter of "can't" and more a matter of "don't choose to." America has plenty of resources to properly take care of all its citizens...it's a matter of choosing to make that a priority.
Stephanie, I meant if we can't afford it from the perspective that congress is cutting some of those programs because they don't consider them to be a priority.
Good question though because I wasn't clear on that. Thank you!
:-)
That is all I am saying Steph. We do have plenty of resources that we do not use to actually improve the country. We use them for tax cuts and subsidies, pork projects, and fundraising trips for millionaire politicians.
You may not be a stereotypical "pro-lifer" that I talk about, but I assure you that I know plenty who are. Many of them are in my family. I am not a supporter of abortion, I just think there are larger social issues to tackle first. Abortion may not improve someone's situation, but being forced to have a child could easily make it worse.
I know that plenty of people will adopt perfect, little babies, but that does nothing to solve those older children that need families also. I have been guilty of it at times too, but most Americans think if they can't see the homeless or people not getting enough to eat, it must not be happening.
I am not accusing you of anything, just talking about people who I have experience. There are many people with good intentions on both sides, but there are also many who just want to force us to see it their way. Some will not accept any attacks on abortion and others will want abortion to be totally banned.
Many of my pro-life friends are also pro-death penalty. They tell me about innocent lives and guilty people, but I figure if you are pro-life, you must be across the board.
Lisa,
A lot of people don't realize it, which is why I made for the bit of clarification.
In truth, the amount of food that gets thrown away in ONE day at a typical American restaurant is more food than an entire village gets in a month in some parts of the world. We can take care of our own if we'd just choose to do so...and far too few Americans realize how easy it would be if we just prioritized it.
me4,
There's far too many ways for me to go here... Let's see if I can narrow it down.
1) I dislike stereotypes. I'm stereotyped quite often, usually by liberals, which I find unsettling and ironic. I am an intelligent, poor, conservative. That eliminates most liberal stereotypes right there, but people still use them to label me and others when they don't bother to understand another's p.o.v. Just because such people as you described exist, doesn't mean they're the majority of those you intended them to label and doesn't mean it is appropriate or fair to use "pro-lifer" as synomous with the stereotype. While you very well might not be one who holds to the indoctrination of political correctness...I find that people who howl over political correctness are often the first to use such stereotypes on their opponents which devalues their very worth-while attempts to eliminate other prejudices.
2) "...but being forced to have a child could easily make it worse."
Except in rather rare instances of rape, not allowing abortions isn't forcing someone to have a child. The people involved made choices that led to the conception. Except in the instance of rape, there's no outside force involved, except when a doctor (or other) forcibly expels the child. In the instance of rape, whether or not a child is had should NOT be the first concern of those who wish to help the individual. Health, mental and physical, and safety from further attacks should be higher priorities. Morning-after pills, unless something has changed, are now available, and imo, should be distributed to those victims who wish it. But, generally speaking, dis-allowing abortions is not forcing someone to have a child...they already chose to do what it takes to have the child and are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. This is a significant difference of opinion that is often a stumbling block between reaching an understanding betwixt the two differing sides on this issue.
3) "I know that plenty of people will adopt perfect, little babies..."
Adoption in this country is a joke and a travesty. I know this. I'd gladly fix this. However, adoption being a joke still doesn't justify murder. Would you advocate killing those unwanted children? To me, there's no difference between killing unwanted babies and killing those unwanted children. So, while the argument that adoption as it is currently done in America is not an acceptable solution is one I readily agree with, allowing for abortions isn't the solution to this problem. Fixing the way adoptions are handled in America is the solution to this problem.
4) "I am not accusing you of anything..."
We all here have acknowledged that abortion is a sticky, sticky issue. To me, abortion is murder. Not for religious reasons. Not because I want to force my view on anyone. For me, it's because I felt my living children grow inside my womb. Pregnancy decided me, nothing more, nothing less. Nor is anyone going to be able to argue me out of my opinion, because I felt the lives of four children grow within me...and felt one slip away for whom I still mourn despite the fact that the conception was rape and I was only fourteen when it happened. These four individuals were distinct little people BEFORE the second trimester. That's why I view abortion as murder and that's not something argument can change.
5) "They tell me about innocent lives and guilty people, but I figure if you are pro-life, you must be across the board."
And it can be argued just as logically that if you're for death, it must be across the board. Thanks to Lisa, and her continued efforts to break through my naivity, I'm now officially "out" on the capital punishment issue, because before she brought it to my attention I'd never really considered the fact that a person condemned to die might not have committed the crime, though he/she was found guilty. However, I do believe that there are crimes that are heinous enough to merit death as an act of justice. The burden of proof should be higher in such instances than we currently hold them, but that's just the beginning of insuring justice.
However, death for convenience's sake (whether it be the expense of maintaining the life of a child or the expense of maintaining the life of a criminal) is NOT a justification for murder, imo.
Each of these five points could make for an entire blog discussion of their own. But, I want to make this point clear:
IMO, all the justifications you've given for allowing abortion can and should be handled in a different matter entirely. Yes, there are many other social issues that need to be resolved. Yes, America could resolve these issues if it so chose. Yes, it's a disgrace that we have not chosen to do so. However...we CAN fix these issues. We can NOT save the lives of all the babies who are aborted on a daily basis. Murder is NOT fixable, which is the argument against the death penalty in the first place.
Post a Comment