November 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
There are a lot of pro-lifers, and they have been counted on to vote en bloc for the Republicans. The abortion issue has pulled many a Democrat “right”-ward.
Where one finds a lot of disagreement is how to stop abortions.
Ron Paul and Fred Thompson get hammered when they say they are pro-life and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but stop short of calling for a federal ban on abortion. They see the issue as two sides of the same coin: federal power existing outside the explicit tenets set forth in the Constitution. Barring a Constitutional Amendment which would define the ban as constitutional, I think they are right on this.
You can find “pro-choice” people who can agree that Roe v. Wade was bad law, even if it was bad law that resulted in their favor. If Al Gore had petitioned to recount all the counties in Florida rather than just the several counties he thought he had more votes in, Bush v. Gore may not have even existed. How we use the law matters.
Every state has murder statutes. The federal government has a murder statute for the grounds that it occupies; hence the separate state and federal murder charges for Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. State charges for murder are generally sufficient to get people punished for the crime of murder.
If Roe v. Wade were lifted, some states would ban abortion and some may not. That’s better than what is going on now, and the ban would be enforced by more fiscally responsible government agencies than the federal government. In those states were abortion would be left open, there are municipal, county, and other regulations that can ban it. License fees can be charged to support adoption facilities.
Whatever happens to Roe v. Wade, the Christian church needs to be united in opposing this behavior. Unless the child unwittingly is in the act of killing his or her mother, the killing of a child is murder no matter who its parents are.
There are plenty of reasons for Republicans to castigate one another. Berating some because they would not use the federal government to achieve the same goals is not one of them.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
November 16th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I think you are seeing a gradual drift towards some form of consensus on this issue that I think would be resolved quicker if Roe v Wade was overturned. Look the handful of cases where a pregnant mother was killed and the murderer is charged with double homicide. Look at the general consensus, even by some pro-choice advocates at banning partial birth and late term abortions.
The issue of abortion revolves solely around the issue of when does a fetus reach a stage that imbues it with natural human rights. Some say conception, some say when the fetus is “viable” to live outside the confines of the womb. Some used to say “at birth”, but I think society has drifted away from that.
My problem with abortion is you are immediately cast into a no-win situation. The rights of the individual are paramount. With abortion you have two rights which are in conflict. The right of the child to his life, and the right of the mother to her body. There is no answer that does not involve violating someone’s rights.
My personal opinion when no “right” answer is possible, you must go with the answer that does the least harm. And in my opinion, the right of the child to life is of greater priority to the right of the mother to her body. But it is a sticky situation to be forced to choose. I think however society will figure out what they are at most comfortable with.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
You make a good point, Dan. I said something similar when our state was deliberating a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Most conservative Christians thought it was good thing. Some, perhaps few, may not have. Maybe they thought the current laws simply needed to be enforced, or that some new law at a lower level than the constitution should be passed. (Wisconsin did pass the constitutional ban, by the way).
What Christians must agree on is that gay marriage and abortion are wrong. What the Bible does not prescribe is exactly how we enact laws to protect life and marriage, but the principles are clearly laid out.
Reasonable Christians can disagree the “how to” of these things. What we cannot reasonably disagree on in good conscience is God’s clear word.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Society as a whole has never really embraced the current Roe vs. Wade decision.
And I disagree with the argument that this as a “no-win” situation with regard to supporting or rejecting abortion. It is very rare given our state of medical services when a woman’s life is threatened by being pregnant. And most abortions are done to women who’s lives are not threatened. And most of the health problems involving pregnancy and abortion occur from the abortion, not the pregnancy.
We must stop buying into the argument that siding against abortion-on-demand is somehow a hard decision.
On the other hand:
What people most fear about the abortion issue is having government dictate personal decisions. But using the abortion issue to battle the politics of government power over society isn’t the way to win converts from those of us on the conservative-right of the political spectrum.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Lawrence,
You miss my point. It is a no-win situation because you are having to decided between who’s rights are paramount. The right of the child to its life, or the right of the mother to do with her body as she sees fit (be it doing drugs, piercings, or, yes, having an abortion). You have a conflicting set of rights. There is no 100% clear cut RIGHT answer. There is a “more right” answer, but again, there is NO answer that does not involve the imposition/violation of an individuals rights.
My point is I think that, absent heavy handed one-size-fits-all federal government intervention, society at large will figure the question of abortion out, and I think you would see a fairly uniform policy applied to the problem over time.
Just my .02 of a dollar.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Starfox,
I think you and I agree for the most part, but I just don’t see choosing between child and mother as no-win. It is not required that we must choose one or the other. The winning choice in my book is to choose both.
Everyone pretty much already has the right to do whatever they want to their bodies, short of murdering someone else in the effort. But what our current abortion laws do is give women a time window for when they have the right to murder their children. I think it is pretty clear in my book that this is not morally acceptable.
As far as society figuring this out, this is what we have now with regard to the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade. This decision is quite uniform. This decision was reached in part because society could not reach a concensus on their own, without judicial intervention.