The A-Word
One subject I rarely blog or talk about on the air is abortion. I find these discussions usually to be counter-productive and all it does is inflame both sides of the issue and resolves nothing.
However, with recent marking of the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though I argue the more relevant legal authority is Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvannia v. Casey, I have reflected more on the subject as of late.
My thoughts have always been would turning the abortion issue back over to the states really solve anything? A couple years ago The Atlantic did an analysis of state abortion laws and found that if the issue was turned back over to the states no woman would ever be more than a half-day drive, at best, from being from a state where the procedure was legal.
And for that matter would making abortion illegal altogether really make it go away? We have tons of laws, making tons of things illegal, but our prison population continues to grow.
And speaking of prison, if abortion were made illegal, who goes to jail? The woman? The doctor? The doctor’s assistant? The person who drove her to the clinic? Lots of questions. I personally think the best way to deal with this issue is not through a change of law, but a change of heart.
By making sure women and men (I only know of one pregnancy that reportedly occurred without a man’s help) have access to birth control and information about preventive pregnancy measures, making adoption easier, foster care more workable and going after men who won’t pay child support, would probably go a long way to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and making the abortion less of an issue.
Just a thought.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Let’s not forget the Constitution in all of this…The reason to overturn Roe v. Wade is simply a constitutional issue. While some may shutter at the thought that overturning Roe v. Wade would “make abortions illegal” they would be terribly wrong…overturning Roe v. Wade would simply turn the authority back over to the states…where it belongs.
I’ll go a little off topic here, but remember when there was a stir in mid 2008 over the feds talking about mandating a national speed limit of, say, 60 mph or 55 mph, all in the name of saving energy. First off, there are a multitude of arguments against lowering the speed limits, but it is not the role of the federal government to tell the states what their speed limits should be….likewise, it isn’t the feds role to tell the states how to handle abortion rights.
It’s a simple constitutional issue. I believe in freedom of choice, but I also believe in the Constitution, and abortion rights is not an issue that should be handled by the feds.
Don’t even get me started on the constitutionality of national healthcare…
January 24th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
As a self-proclaimed libertarian, how do you feel, Abdul, about your tax dollars funding abortions domestically, as well as internationally?
January 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
John,
You might think a national speed limit on the nation’s highways might be the wrong policy, and i respect that, but the federal government does have the power to enact such a regulation. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say it couldn’t do it directly, it could just easily do it indirectly by witholding highway funding to any state that refused to change their speed limit. So, one way or another the federal government has the power to set a national speed limit.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
David: lol…tenth amendment mean anything to you?
January 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I didn’t know our host was a Libertarian. Most of them don’t care to grow government. But, there are always outliers, I suppose,like Jesse Jackson who in a moment of candor noted that Abortion was genocide. Why do you think Planned Parenthood locates their killing fields in Black or Hispanic neighborhoods?
January 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I’m reminded of a piece of Scripture: how can they hear without a preacher. Who is going to preach (teach)to inspire a change of heart? Who is it that’s going to teach info that softens a hard heart so that we have no more stray babies abandoned on door steps?
January 24th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Killing fields” denotes that our standard practice in America is some sort of profound step above that. In looking at our collective statistics on poverty, abuse, obeisity, graduation, incarceration, and unemployment of children and young people from broken homes, would you say our subsidation of childbirth is a resounding success? Morally, statistically, OR fiscally?
.
We don’t give a damn about children in this country. We care about the precious rights of a biological parent to stay united with their biological child, no matter how wretched the parenting. After all if we didn’t, all those health care workers, lawyers, counselors, case workers, judges, and legislators would have to find other work or ways to justify their jobs. What the heck? Kids are mallable, right? It makes no diffence if a child’s abused or neglected in early childhood, as an endless loop of going to and from the inept biological parents takes place. Eventually, all these kids will be well taken care of and have the same opportunities as other kids, right?
.
Raise a kid that suffered abuse and/or neglect until the age of three and then come tell me if all kids will see the same opportunities. This is too weird a philosophical juxtapostition for many, but abortion would serve us well versus the personal and societal cost many kids have to bear in this world. If that makes me a killer in addition to my mantle of “xenophobe”, so be it.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The thing I always find interesting about this debate is almost eveyone has some valid point in their argument. It is a quite interesting debate from my standpoint. My view has nothing to do with religion, The Constitution, State vs Federal but a very personal issue. I would tend to call myself pro choice even though I think abortion is awlful. I have this opinion due to the fact that my son has Down syndrome. While we would never have considered abortion and neve did the testing I would never condemn a person for making the opposite decesion. Our current society spends 10 times the amount of money developing pre-natal testing then they do therapies. I always am intrigued by people that are rabid pro-life yet when they find out the are going to have a baby with Down syndrome and the doctors convince them termination is best (currently 90% of all postive test pregnancies for Down syndrome are terminated) they become pro-choice. I can go on and on about the data on this subject but I will suffice to say that no matter what your political view on this issue my question is what would you do if you were faced with really having to make a decesion?
Peace
January 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Here’s my standard question regarding abortion:
.
Since a fetus delivered at 5 months is now viable as a result of technology, I’ll bet that one day we’ll be able to artificially support a fetus from the moment of conception.
.
If it would be murder to kill the 5 month old today if it was on life support, would it be murder to destroy the egg after conception if it were under life support?
.
If your answer is no, please define the specific point between conception and 5 months when the baby actually became alive.
.
Also – if you plan to respond to my post without giving your specific answer to the question, just don’t bother responding. I’m not looking for an argument or an opinion. I’m looking for facts. If it’s not a life, where csan we safely draw the line without risk of supporting or committing murder. Thanks.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“By making sure women and men (I only know of one pregnancy that reportedly occurred without a man’s help) have access to birth control and information about preventive pregnancy measures, making adoption easier, foster care more workable and going after men who won’t pay child support, would probably go a long way to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and making the abortion less of an issue.”
I find this laughable, at best. Condoms are easily available. Most women can get birth control drugs at Planned Parenthood. The entire problem is that grown humans act like animals, then expect everyone else to bail them out when it comes time to face the consequences. I don’t care if you gave free birth control pills, or the patch, or whatever to high school kids. They will still get drunk and forget the condom, or forget to take a pill, etc. etc..
As far as abortion goes, I personally think it should be legal, however there should be a cut-off time, say six months. Outside the six months, it should be a case of the child being seriously ill or posing a threat to the mother’s life. Secondly, if women want the complete and final say in the matter, then men should be given the same rights when it comes to being forced into fatherhood. As soon as fatherhood can be determined, a man should be given a certain number of days in which to file court paperwork declaring his acceptance of parental rights or his denial of those rights. If he accepts, then he gets 50% custody and pays child support. If he declines, he gets 0% custody and has to pay nothing. A denial would only be allowed to be reversed upon the OK of the mother. Once a declination is reversed, there would be no going back. Even if the guy changes his mind again and never sees the child, he would still be forced to pay child support.
Of course the rabid women who support abortion really don’t care about abortion. It is more about giving women _more_ power over men. If women rights groups were all about “equality” as they proclaim, they would support a man’s right to decline fatherhood, thus letting the woman decide if she wants to go at it alone or not. This would obviously work best if fatherhood could be determined by a test before the child is born.
Now, before someone chimes in with the laughable “Well, the father should not have a choice, it takes two to tango. The father could have used a condom or not had sex.” Yes, that is correct, but then I could use the exact same argument for why abortion should be illegal. Couldn’t the woman had been on the pill? Couldn’t the woman had refrained from sex?
It really doesn’t matter. As history has shown us, viruses and other nasty things have a habit of mutating/being created over time. There is now a super strain of HIV, which last I read, will give you AIDS within a year. Eventually humans who revert to pre-human intelligence when it comes to sex will get some deadly disease and die out. You can’t abort HIV/AIDS. Of course people why cry that others should be taxed as to find a “cure” or whatever, anything that will allow them to take no responsibility. Consider the burn-off of these humans evolution in action.
January 25th, 2009 at 2:23 am
The correct argument is, as my good friend Shorebreak points out, at what point does the unborn child become a life protected under the law? Since babies born as early as 22 to 24 weeks have been known to survive (rarely and often with difficulty) then at worst, that is the cutoff.
…
I do not subscribe to the belief that an unborn child is some kind of cancer leaching off of the mother and I do believe in personal responsibility.
…
The bottom line is that by engaging in activity that could result in pregnancy, even with precautions there is the understanding they are not 100% effective, a person accepts the risk that they could potentially reproduce. Therefore, there is a responsibility to accept those consequences.
…
NOW, does that preclude needing to address things in a rather quick fashion, perhaps the first trimester or being subject to a default decision not to deprive the new person of life, perhaps. BUT, ultimately, (a) knew it could happen (b) have responsibilities.
…
Unfortunately, many take the most awesome power each of us is granted and take a rather cavalier approach to it.
…
Unless the Federal Government wants to define what constitutes life (be careful here – historically this was used to DENY rights) – this is a state issue. Even if you believe it is outright murder, the States prosecute murders, not the FEDs.
…
And to the more vocal social conservatives. IF the stats are right, 20% of women have had an abortion. Calling the procedure murder, not real good for winning fans amongst them. Especially those, like the subject of Roe V Wade that have had second thoughts or regrets.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
A newborn left unattended will not survive. To neglect, that which we may choose to consider as the elements of life, may not, as conscious beings, be our best practices. There is no more important choice than the first choice (ever play the game of nim?). We need to emphasize the importance of first choices, the sanctity of our human design, commitment & purpose; beyond the terms of impulse (exercise in fertility). While bad law deserves repeal, Abdul is right about changing the heart of our culture. And, none can claim to teach public health, without full, graphic disclosure of how abortions are done. Like a newborn, a fetus will do that which is within its power to survive. Who are we if we can’t stand up for life, in whatever form or elements we choose to consider it? What right do we have, to characterize the prospect of another’s life as bleak, or as an inconvenient burden for us to bear; to be obscurely denied & taken, by way of clinical procedure? Is that how we “build” a culture worthy of succession or inheritance? It’s impossible to ignore the gravity of BD’s earlier post / comments; a conversation I’ve had many times with friends who have a down syndrome child, who, as she relentlessly pesters us to play another game of catch or round of duck-duck-goose, reminds us that we can’t imagine the world without her.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I’m pro-choice (w/ caveats) but I really think this is a matter for the states. The states are charged with protecting their citizens and they should have the call for determining how best they can be served. e.g; In the sparsely populated west it makes sense to grant (restricted) driver’s licenses to 14 yr. olds while in New Jersey this would not be prudent.
I disagree with the Court for taking Roe since they granted cert. under the Commerce Clause, a vastly over-used means of weakening our federalist form of government. Abortion simply is not a matter of interstate commerce. While I believe Roe to be a Solomonic decision, it should not have came before the Court to begin with on the terms it was presented. If it was a matter of privacy, that should have been how the Court should have accepted it, not under the catch-all of the “Commerce Clause,” a rubric too often misused to vastly increase the jurisdiction of the Federal Gov.
It is really fun to listen to the anti-abortionists answer when you take their framing of the issue and apply logic. OK, abortion is murder. Not manslaughter, not 2nd degree. The act is premeditated and deliberate. At the very least, both doctor and patient should be convicted of murder. In most states this will also include everyone who abetted the act (nurses, the driver who brought the woman, etc.,).
Dan Quayle was asked if he was ready to send his daughter to prison if she had an abortion and he wasn’t too big on that. This is where the hypocrisy shows thru, if it is murder there are consequnces. If it is something short of murder, the anti-abortion crowd needs to reframe their argument and rhetoric.
You are correct that this issue needs to be adressed in terms of changing people’s heart.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Nothing good comes from abortion.
We are currently living in a society that cares less of a human than a goose. Did you know you can be fined 500.00 and time in jail for destroying a goose egg, but to destroy a baby…NOTHING!
A 13 year old girl in school has to have permission from her parents to have an aspirin, but if FOCA is passed she does not have to let them know she is having a (tax paid) abortion.
One of four pregnancies in the US end in abortion.
The same number of people killed in 911 are murdered every day from abortion.
God will remember what we have done to the value of human life. (but please save the baby seals)
January 26th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
You have nailed the essential error in “turning it back to the States”. As Alan Keyes said recently, “Turning abortion back to the States would be like turning slavery (also a moral evil) back to the States after the Civil War”.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Oh Good Lord now we’re relying on that nitwit Alan Keyes for advice?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
A good number of those 22-24 weekers survive, but barely. As a person who treats them, they struggle their entire lives.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
As Quinn (from the Pittsburgh based Quinn & Rose Show) says…
Conservatives view children as potential contributors to society. Liberals consider children a burden to society.