Human life is a serious subject. The issue of abortion, which is inextricably linked to the issue of life, has been a hot button subject for as long as I can remember. Sadly, however, there is too little thought and too much dogma at work in that debate.
Let's start at the beginning. Most people would agree that the taking of human life except in response to the most heinous crimes is not something that either the state or any individual is allowed to do. That is why there are laws against murder. Let's also agree that people are entitled to both privacy and the right to control their own bodies in most cases. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the agreement stops.
On the one side we have pro-life zealots who oppose abortion in all cases. Some even oppose birth control. These folks, however, cannot ever impose their will on the country unless the Constitution or its interpretation gets changed. Fourty years ago, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that during the first third of pregnancy, the government was prohibited from interfering with abortion. This pro-life folks are free to avoid abortions, but they cannot prevent others from getting them. The Supreme Court also allowed abortion restrictions of certain kinds during the second three months of pregnancy and it also prohibited abortions during the last three months of pregnancy except in the rarest of instances where the life of the mother is threatened and the baby cannot be saved.
On the other side, we have the pro-choice zealots who fight against any restriction on abortion. Those who support life over choice are described as neanderthals or bigots or worse by the pro-choice forces. The pro-lifers seem incapable of discussing the issue without resorting to name calling and distortion.
Just last night, president Obama spoke to the biggest pro-choice group in the country (and the biggest abortionist) Planned Parenthood. It seems that he just could not help himself. He had to describe the pro-lifers as wanting to return the country to the 1950's. He was describing new restrictions placed on abortion in North Dakota at the time. Those restrictions, however, do not prohibit abortion; they just restrict them after a fetal heartbeat is detectable. In the 1950's abortion was a crime in North Dakota; it was prohibited completely. Obama could have said that he disagrees with the North Dakota legislation. Obama could have said that he was authorizing the Justice Department to bring suit to overturn the statute as unconstitutional. That would be fine. But Obama could not help himself; he had to lie. It is second nature to him.
Just think of the trial of Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia. Here is a man allegedly who delivered babies alive in the last three months of pregnancy and then killed these babies. Under Roe v. Wade, what Gosnell allegedly did is murder. There is no way to dispute that conclusion. But none of the major pro-choice organizations can bring themselves to denounce these terrible crimes. Instead, all we get is nonsense about how the murders allegedly committed by Dr. Gosnell were really the fault of pro-life forces.
Lying does not serve the pro-choice forces very well. Obama would do well to tone down his rhetoric and try to do things that might actually bring America together rather than driving us farther and farther apart.
Let's start at the beginning. Most people would agree that the taking of human life except in response to the most heinous crimes is not something that either the state or any individual is allowed to do. That is why there are laws against murder. Let's also agree that people are entitled to both privacy and the right to control their own bodies in most cases. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the agreement stops.
On the one side we have pro-life zealots who oppose abortion in all cases. Some even oppose birth control. These folks, however, cannot ever impose their will on the country unless the Constitution or its interpretation gets changed. Fourty years ago, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that during the first third of pregnancy, the government was prohibited from interfering with abortion. This pro-life folks are free to avoid abortions, but they cannot prevent others from getting them. The Supreme Court also allowed abortion restrictions of certain kinds during the second three months of pregnancy and it also prohibited abortions during the last three months of pregnancy except in the rarest of instances where the life of the mother is threatened and the baby cannot be saved.
On the other side, we have the pro-choice zealots who fight against any restriction on abortion. Those who support life over choice are described as neanderthals or bigots or worse by the pro-choice forces. The pro-lifers seem incapable of discussing the issue without resorting to name calling and distortion.
Just last night, president Obama spoke to the biggest pro-choice group in the country (and the biggest abortionist) Planned Parenthood. It seems that he just could not help himself. He had to describe the pro-lifers as wanting to return the country to the 1950's. He was describing new restrictions placed on abortion in North Dakota at the time. Those restrictions, however, do not prohibit abortion; they just restrict them after a fetal heartbeat is detectable. In the 1950's abortion was a crime in North Dakota; it was prohibited completely. Obama could have said that he disagrees with the North Dakota legislation. Obama could have said that he was authorizing the Justice Department to bring suit to overturn the statute as unconstitutional. That would be fine. But Obama could not help himself; he had to lie. It is second nature to him.
Just think of the trial of Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia. Here is a man allegedly who delivered babies alive in the last three months of pregnancy and then killed these babies. Under Roe v. Wade, what Gosnell allegedly did is murder. There is no way to dispute that conclusion. But none of the major pro-choice organizations can bring themselves to denounce these terrible crimes. Instead, all we get is nonsense about how the murders allegedly committed by Dr. Gosnell were really the fault of pro-life forces.
Lying does not serve the pro-choice forces very well. Obama would do well to tone down his rhetoric and try to do things that might actually bring America together rather than driving us farther and farther apart.
1 comment:
Since Roe vs Wade wasn't until 1973, I wondered why Obama chose the 1950's when he could just as well chosen to compare to the 1960's. Then I realized that he was born in 1961. He purposely chose the 1950's--not the 1960's--to avoid someone saying -" gee, if abortion was accepted in the 1960's maybe Barack Obama would never have been born!" Wow, what a loss that would have been to the country! Don Giles
Post a Comment