7.13.2014
As a moderate it is difficult to find an answer to this issue, since there are viable arguments on both sides. In a perfect world I am sure that all of us would prefer not to kill anything. In a perfect world there would be no reason for abortion. All children will be conceived of love and born into wonderful nurturing families. But we don’t live in a perfect world and often children are conceived for the wrong reasons, or to parents who cannot care for them. Often there are legitimate medical reasons for an abortion, or other legitimate considerations such as a child conceived from rape or incest. Sometimes it is just a matter of convenience for the parent(s). Many feel that the decision on legalizing abortion should be left up to the individual states. I don’t think this is a good idea as it has the potential to create a ridiculous situation. If abortion were legal in Nevada but not in Utah then anybody in Utah who wanted an abortion would simply go to Nevada. Different state laws governing abortions are already mixed and complex. The last thing we need is any more confusion.
For more information on state abortion laws see –
State Abortion Laws – Guttmacher Institute
Wikipedia , Abortion Laws State by State
In an attempt to understand what drives the abortion debate, lets look at the primary drivers on both sides.
On the pro life side, one of the primary opponents of abortions are religious groups that base their beliefs on verses in the Bible. While our freedoms in this country encourage open expression of our religious beliefs America has intentional separation of church and state. The legality of abortion is not a decision that can be made on religious grounds, and it would be unconstitutional to do so. Other opponents of abortion oppose it on moral/legal grounds, believing that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, an should have all the rights to life of any human under the Constitution. This argument is very viable, and makes sense. However, our Supreme Court finds differently. We will examine this in greater depth in a few paragraphs.
The primary supporters of the pro choice opinion contend that a woman has the right to the privacy and control of her own body, and that it should be the uninhibited choice of the mother to decide if she wants to carry and bare a child. This is a perfectly legitimate argument, and seems to be in line with the Constitution’s 4th Amendment. Again, the argument seems to hinge on the belief that a fetus is not a human being. As we know, this opinion is currently the law of the land.
In determining who has a reason to back either side of this issue, lets follow the money. Anti-abortion groups have a fair number of contributors, but there is not a clear cut way as to how any of these contributors could profit from their contributions. If there was any proof that a baby food manufacturer or a diaper company was contributing to a right to life group, I could see the hypocracy and conflict. But these trails do not exist. However, the same cannot be said for the pro-abortion camp. The primary proponet of pro-abortion legislation is Planned Parenthood (P.P.). P.P. is a not for profit organization that makes millions of dollars a year in excess revenue (aka:profits). Abortions are their largest single source of income. Planned Parenthood received $487.4 million in government funding in 2010, and that has increased annually. In 2013 P.P. received $540.6 million in state and federal free money. Planned Parenthood has given millions back to the campaigns of politicians that support pro abortion legislation, primarily through their affiliates, and has spent millions in lobbying for the same. It would seem that there is a conflict of interests here, regardless of your moral or legal stance on this issue. This is the type of process that keep this country polarized and keeps politicians obligated to special interests.
For more information see –
www.plannedparenthood.org
www.sba-list.org
www.politifact.com
The Supreme Court has decided that abortion is legal in this country. We must abide by this decision, whether we agree with that or not. Since I am not an expert on this subject, and the morality of the issue is far from clear, I will bow to the opinion of those who are more knowledgeable in medicine and law than I am. But looking at it from a moderate point of view it seems to me that the law is not fairly or equally enforced.
In attempting to understand this morally, legally and constitutionally we must presume that if a fetus can be destroyed without due process then it is either never considered alive or not considered a human being. Since a fetus is obviously a growing thing it has to be alive. If it is not a human being than we must consider it as something that can be owned, more like a cabbage. Something whose basic existence is at the mercy and discretion of its owner. It is below a pet on the humanitarian scale, as even a puppy has more protection under the law than a fetus. In this case the owner would be the mother. If we consider the fetus to be human then the Supreme Court has given the mother virtually the powers of God over another human being, the power of life or death at a whim. Since this is clearly unconstitutional the fetus obviously is not considered a human being.
Yet it seems, in light of recent court decisions and sentences have been handed down, that the life of a fetus is solely at the discretion of the mother. It seems that if the mother decides she wants to keep a fetus then it is considered a human being and if she decides to abort the fetus is considered something akin to a cabbage. This should be of great concern to anyone in our society who believes that justice should be equally administered to all.
Case in point…. If a pregnant woman drives to an abortion clinic and has the fetus removed from her womb and it dies, then this is perfectly legal and there are no criminal charges against either the woman or the doctor. Yet, if this same woman is driving to the supermarket and is hit by someone who runs a red light, and her fetus dies, then the driver of the vehicle is charged with some form of manslaughter. In order to be guilty of manslaughter you have to kill a human being. This is the conundrum, a law that is selectively enforced. The laws on this vary greatly from state to state, but any law that punishes one citizen and not another for the same act seems incredibly wrong and unconstitutional . Regardless of how you feel about abortion in general this injustice needs to be corrected. Where the death of the fetus is truly a bad thing under any circumstances, it cannot be manslaughter if the fetus is just as dead when killed by a doctor as it is when it is killed by a distracted driver, unless the doctor is also guilty of manslaughter, or perhaps murder, since abortion is intentional. In that case the mother should be just as guilty. Either it is manslaughter or murder for both or for neither. Justice under the law should be equal for all citizens.
8-8-2015
It has recently come to light that P.P has been selling fetus body parts for profit. On the face this seems very ghoulish and sickly wrong. However, if the abortion is going to take place anyway, and if parts from the fetus can relieve suffering or save the life of a newborn child, then it only makes sense to use the parts in this fashion.
Yet is still seems inherently wrong for Planned Parenthood to profit from these sales. It seems that it would start us on a slippery slope that leads to promoting and performing abortions so the clinic can harvest the body parts and sell them for profit. This scenario is humanity at its most base and vile level. I also have to question what right P.P. has to sell the fetus parts. It seems that the fetus should belong to the mother. But again, if the mother would to be allowed to sell these parts it opens the door to allow any woman to have an abortion and to profit from the body parts.
I believe the best solution is to require anyone performing abortions to supply body parts to any newborn whose life can be bettered or saved by receiving those parts. This should be done at the expense of the abortion clinic. It should be illegal to receive any sort of compensation for these parts or the service of providing them. I believe the mother should have the choice of donating the fetus parts, much the same way that we as adults can decide to be organ donors. The parts could be distributed through a waiting list in the same fashion. This solution allows needy children to receive the benefit of these parts regardless of their families economic or social stature, and prohibits any person or organization of practicing the ghoulish and grotesque acts of selling body parts for profit.
Another recent development states that 21st century medical procedures have found that a fetus can feel pain much earlier in the development cycle than previously thought. Apparently the 1973 Supreme court decision on Row v. Wade was based at least partly on the assumption that the fetus did not suffer during the abortion. Does the ability to feel pain establish a fetus’ humanity? I don’t know, but it sounds like the pro life advocates will ask the Supreme Court to hear this issue again.