Originally Posted by Eric Revelin
George Carlin once joked that pro-life is actually pro-death because ultimately the children that aren't cared for or educated end up in the military because they can't do anything else.
It doesn't seem George Carlin was a very wise man if he thought that abortion was a joking matter or that the value of a life is measured by education or economic status. If we follow this logic to where it leads then if the US comes to need more Cannon fodder, as Carlin seems to imply is the purpose of our military, we can pay women not to have abortions and solve the poverty problem at the same time. Of maybe we can all just kill ourselves especially if we can't afford college and be better off like the babies in heaven.
Look, I really didn't mean to start an abortion debate with that one statement. I have put a lot of thought into it and my mind is settled on this issue. I know a lot of people lurk here and the statistics are that 1 in 3 women will chose abortion in their lifetime, although the rate is declining. And with the 840,000 abortions each year there is also man involved too so that's a lot of people to whom this is not just a theoretical issue. It is not my intent to hurt or condemn anyone that may doubt something they can't change if I do convince them it was wrong. The baby is in heaven and there is forgiveness for this like there is for every other way we fail to include God in our decisions.
But the issue is out there now so I feel the need to explain why it has been a main factor in my voting. As a Christian, I believe I am responsible to God for how I use what I have been given. If this were a monarchy or a dictatorship, the only power I would have would be to not have an abortion and to try to influence others to do the same. But in this democracy, I have the power to influence the laws that are made and I will have to account for the way I use that power.
I believe what the Bible says about life beginning for the baby while it is in the womb, although there is no specific point stated in there.
God told Jeremiah, 'Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you.' And John the Baptist was aware and leapt in his mother's womb when she was address by Mary who was pregnant with Jesus. We read and sing to our babies in the womb to give them a head start because of a scientific theory.
As purely a legal issue, we are inconsistent and ride the fence on the issue of the rights of the child verses the rights of the mother. The baby's defintion as a life and it's rights to live vary depending on how the pregancy ends. We will charge anyone else but the mother with a crime if the baby is killed while it is still in the womb. The law says the woman has a right to abortion because she can do whatever she wants with her own body, except put drugs in it while pregnant. We will charge the mother with child abuse if the baby is born with drugs in it's blood but with nothing if it is never born. Maybe our government doesn't care about the babies but is trying to make abortion look like the best option for those who use drugs by threatening them with legal action, a kind of voluntary genocide of undesirables?
Originally Posted by Eric Revelin
Frankly I don't think moral issues and personal issues should be decided by the federal government, period. I think it would be better to leave abortion up to the states, and for the government to butt out of marriage altogether, gay or straight. This country is too large and diverse to impose one form of morality on everyone.
All laws are based on moral values and assumptions, including the ones on where the money is spent to do the most good and the laws that route the money into their own pockets. Even the ones about something that seems to not be about morality, like workmen's compensation. If everyone is agreed on what is right then why do we have to make laws? And how do we decide who to protect with the law and what is the correct punishment if it is broken? We, as a government, depend on the moral compass of the people we elect to represent us.
I won't point out the moral dilemmas of the laws that limit behaviors of gambling, prostitution, drug use, age limits on sexual activity, drinking, or military service and even laws on stock tips and tax evasion as well as public decency and exposure. We may think there is no victim in abortion, but do we know that? If the baby is ruled out having any rights, what about the father, or the medical staff, counselors and school personnel that may lose their jobs if they don't support or participate in something they feel to be morally wrong?
Some of us don't come to our senses about a lot of our behavior until we are older and our values shift as we live and grow wiser. And some people, especially young people, look to public opinion and society when deciding their values and finding their place. By saying a particular behavior is legal, like abortion, it may seem that our society is supporting that behavior as morally acceptable. Personally, I am glad for the process and a chance to shape our society to reflect our vales with the vote.
Originally Posted by Eric Revelin
but I think we can all agree that taking care of our kids is a big priority, and if we put plans into motion to better the lives of our young ones, we can hail the virtues of adoption (and many who would otherwise be poor will be in a position to take care of their child, thus they would never consider abortion) and lessen the number of abortions that way.
Eric, you argument for the elimination of poverty the way to prevent abortions would be a good one if poverty was the reason most women are choosing to have abortions but it is not. The average woman having an abortion is 26, has kids and wants more, just not now. The reasons they give in surveys vary such as inconvenience, financial considerations, which includes poverty but also maintain current status and unstable relationships.
I agree that we should take care of the kids that are already here. But there is about two year wait in this country to adopt an infant even a minority or special needs baby. Do you really think that those who chose abortion don't know someone wants their baby? Maybe we should mandate a consolation with an adoption counselor before a non-medical abortion can be performed.
I would be more at peace that the baby didn't feel pain from the procedure if we could limit abortions to the first trimester and I would at least feel better if the limit was at the second trimester. But as it is now, it is legal to kill a baby for any reason up until the time it clears the vagina, even by holding it there and sucking the brains out before it can take a breath and be entitled to legal rights.
I know this is necessary sometimes if the mother becomes ill and has to abort the baby for her health, to save the family from having to watch a premature baby suffer that won't live. And it is also used in late term when a defect is found but there are no laws on the severity of the defect. So it is now a legal option in cases of correctable birth defects. And when we get that national health plan, what is to prevent the government from pressuring parents into choosing abortion if the baby has some expensive problems, to eliminate the weak from joining our ranks and becoming our burden?