Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

An honest comment

In This NY Times Adam Naguerney article entitled, "Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue," Donna Brazile is quoted as saying, "All these issues that put us into the extreme and not the mainstream really hurt us with the heartland of the country. Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies."

Discussions - 9 Comments

Brazile’s protestations notwithstanding, the left is trying to lay the political ground work on abortion, as noted here.

I do not think that the Democratic Party is all about abortion. De-emphasising is a good thing, though, in my opinion. I hope that Republicans will follow the Democrats’ example and stop talking abortion (but I’m not holding my breath). Maybe all of us should focus on the poor kids that have already been born, such as the millions of kids without health insurance, those who suffer from malnutrition and hunger. It makes me sick when the abortion issue dominates the political debate.

What’s struck me recently was the thought that it is better for pro-lifers to exist in the framework when abortion is legal. After all, they do not have to deal with the consequences of abortion underground, whereas countries where abortion is illegal, such as Ireland and Poland, are now facing the fact that they have huge abortion undergrounds. Vanloads of women travel elsewhere to get abortion, if they can afford it.

The American polital right will not benefit from banning abortion. They (Republicans) will lose one of their biggest voting draws ever, and abortions will still happen. What may happen when abortion will be banned is an increased infant murder rate.

What? Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statements? We are murdering infants now. What an abortion calls a fetus, a Neo-natal center calls a baby. We are just choosing when to play God and on who. Call it what it is. You want to play God and decide who lives and who dies. You cannot be for abortion and against the death penalty. You cannot be for animal rights and for abortion. Why give animals a right you would not give a child?

What the Democrats need to do is stop playing the relativist game of "I wish we didn’t have any abortions, but I am for a woman’s right to choose and the legal right to abortion." They need to recognize that Douglas made essentially the same argument regarding slavery in his debates with Lincoln - "I wouldn’t personally own a slave, but I am for the legal right to own one and not judge anyone who does." The Democrats should either support abortions as a positive, moral good for freedom and shout it from the rooftops, or recognize it as a moral wrong since many of them make the argument that they wouldn’t have one. Why is that the case, if it is not wrong? Sin, and sin big, or do right.

The problem with the Democrats is that they lack soul and principles. They need to take a stand on an issue and stick to it. They debate too much about "emphasizing" prayer/religion or "de-emphasizing" abortion. It comes across as too insincere to convince a lot of people. They are either truly religious or not. They either support abortion or they don’t. Have some courage. Make a decision about a policy stance and allow the American people to decide whether they want to vote for them. Way too much pandering for votes. Too much insincerity. Liberalism based upon relativism tastes too much like pablum. People want substance.

To Smiling: I am not playing God. I simply state my opinion and you do not have to agree.

To Tony Williams: Expecting that anybody would recognize abortion as something positive and morally good is just idiotic.

To everybody: Republican women have abortions, too. You people need to face that!

To Smiling: Following your own logic - if you are pro-life then you can’t support the war on Iraq nor the legality of the death penalty. Being so against abortion how can you support "collateral damage" (killing of civilians) in Iraq? Why should an unborn American baby have more rights than an already born Iraqi baby? And how do pro-lifers explain the death penalty as moral? Isn’t a murderer/rapist/necrophiliac a human being, too? Or maybe it is just more convenient to call him a "monster" and forget that he also belongs to the homo sapiens species. Pro-choice people do not deny that the fetus belongs to the homo sapiens species. And "fetus" is a medical term and "monster" is not.
Finally, I have never said that I support a woman’s individual decision to have an abortion. I don’t. If a pregnant friend asked me to loan her money for abortion or to support her decision, she would have to listen to 100 arguments why she should have this baby. But neither me nor the law would force her to have this baby. In my first post I was trying to explain why I think that the legality of abortion is probably better for both pro-life and pro-choice people. Trust me, in countries where abortions are illegal (I live in one presently) they still happen, and most likely their number is not lower than if they were legal. They are just conducted in secrecy. So, when abortion is illegal, pro-lifers have less oportunities to meet with women who contemplate abortion and try to influence them to change their mind. Herein, also, is an important distinction between the abortion issue and the slavery issue - while I have read about some isolated incidents of people keeping slaves, even up to the present day, it’s safe to say that making the slave trade illegal put an end to chattel slavery (has anyone seen a slave plantation in Georgia lately?), whereas making abortion illegal would not put an end to abortions, by any means (even if it reduced the abortion rate by half, that would still be a large number remaining, only it would also be accompanied by new health risks for the pregnant woman).

Murder laws don’t prevent all murders from happening, but we should still have the laws. But, that’s just an idiotic opinion.

I’m sorry, that was mean of me to say "idiotic" before.

Anyway, I thought the primary reasons for murder laws were to punish the murderers and protect society. In any event, it seems that if the pro-life/anti-abortion position were to be codified into law, there would have to be some penalty for those seeking and/or procuring abortions (as well as anyone performing the procedure/murder).
And if abortion does indeed equal murder in some way, would it be suggested that convicted abortion-seekers should serve life in prison (or be put to death)?? What of women that attempt (and fail) to perform their own abortions, and are subsequently discovered (in hospital) to have attempted the crime?
I would be interested to hear what kinds of penalties might be proposed should abortion be outlawed/criminalized.

Well, if abortion is indeed murder, and I believe that it is in fact taking a life, shouldn’t those who perform them be punished? The exact penalties should be worked out by state legislatures. I’m against the death penalty (just trying to be consistent regarding the sanctity of human life - but that is another discussion), so I do not support putting those people to death. I also think that society needs to have more compassion for desperate women who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances by offering monetary aid, counseling, and adoption on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, the original point of this is that the Democrats lack any principles on this issue and rather look at it merely as a "should we emphasize this for votes?"

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5637