So what if America’s not ready?
After the GOP presidential debate last night, Sean Hannity asked Gov. Mitt Romney to explain one of his answers.
Hannity: You were asked a question about abortion and the issue of – you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but you accept that America is in a different place right now. I wanted you to expand on that a little bit more in terms of what your opinion was….
Romney: Well, it’s actually almost word for word what the President has said on the same topic, and that is that he was asked, what do you think about the Republican platform and an amendment that would make abortion illegal in all 50 states. And he said, you know, that’s a nice aspiration but that’s not where America is right now. We would welcome that kind of a circumstance, but that’s just not where we are. And that’s why as a pro-life Republican I’m in favor having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade –
Hannity: Let the states decide –
Romney: – and as they overturn Roe v. Wade that would return to the states the right to make this decision.
You know, I got angry when President Bush said that, and I got angry when Romney said that. What a punt. For two people who say they don’t rely on polls in fundamental decision-making, they sure can rely on polls.
So what if “that’s not where America is right now” on abortion? Back in the day, that’s not where America was at on civil rights either, or slavery.
Is abortion the killing of innocent human beings or not? That’s the only question to be answered here. And on that point during the debate, Romney talked in circles:
I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life.
If abortion is without question the taking of a sanctified human life, what else can it be but murder? If Romney supports letting the states decide, is he not by his own words helping perpetuate an uncivilized society?
Some may wonder if I’m abandoning the incrementalist political approach to abortion. I’m not. It’s all we pro-lifers on the streets have, only exascerbated by weak pro-life politicians. And there they are, wasting their tremendous influence and power.
If given the choice, every pro-lifer supports a human life amendment to the Constitution and certainly would not opt for incrementalism just because “that’s not where America is right now.” We only opt for incrementalism because we have no choice. It’s that or nothing, because that’s where American politicians and the American judicial system are right now.
Wendell Goler nailed it with his follow-up question to Gov. Mike Huckabee:
Governor Huckabee, do you see any real difference between Governor Romney’s willingness to allow legalized abortion in some states and Mayor Giuliani’s support – effective support – for a woman’s right to choose?
I’ll answer that. No.
I’ve posted the relevant portion of this debate transcript below.
Excerpt from transcript of Republican presidential debate, September 5, 2007:
QUESTION:
GOLER: Thank you, Congressman.
Governor Romney, your aides say you see ending abortion as a two- step process: rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would leave it legal in some states; and then a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide.
If abortion is murder, how can you live with it being legal in some parts of the country and for how long could you do so?
ROMNEY: Well, I think all of us — I believe almost all of us in the room would say that we’d love to have an America that didn’t have abortion. But the truth of the matter is…
(APPLAUSE)
… that’s not what America is right now. That’s not what the American people are right now. And so I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.
ROMNEY: And of course it’s our aspiration that at some point we’ll see a nation that doesn’t have abortion. But until that time, I certainly believe that allowing states and citizens and their representatives to fashion their own laws to protect the sanctity of life is very, very important.
I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life.
But we have two lives involved here — a mom, an unborn child. We have to have concern for both lives and show the expression of our compassion and our consideration and work to change hearts and minds, and that’s the way in my view we’ll ultimately have a society without abortion.
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: Governor Huckabee, do you see any real difference between Governor Romney’s willingness to allow legalized abortion in some states and Mayor Giuliani’s support — effective support — for a woman’s right to choose?
HUCKABEE: Wendell, I’m going to let them sort out whatever differences they have.
HUCKABEE: I would love to see us have in this country what I helped lead in our state in Arkansas, and that’s a human life amendment to our state constitution, Amendment 65, that says that we believe life begins at conception, and that we ought to do everything in the world possible to protect it until its natural conclusion.
And that means that we truly value and respect, elevate and celebrate every life.
The reason this country has been extraordinarily interested in what’s going on to those miners out in Utah is because even though we don’t know them, they represent us in the sense that they are human beings, and we don’t know their fate.
We need to show the same kind of respect for life whether a child is in the womb, or whether in a coal mine, or in a long-term care facility. It’s about the fact that in our culture, the greatest testament that we can give is that we have an undying respect for every human life as having intrinsic worth and value.
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: Thank you, Governor.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s hard to say. i think America is ready for a change in abortion laws. But it’s not as simple as just switching the laws around. We need to also build ways to make it easier for pregnant women to get a higher education, and help society to decrease its dependence of abortion to solve its problems. It’s sad that it might take a while because of obstinancy, but it’s the long term solution.
For the record, the part of decreasing America’s reliance also includes everything else we need to do to decrease the need–including changes in workplace policy and everything.
PIP said: “But it’s not as simple as just switching the laws around.”
Actually, it is, PIP. Abortion was forced on the entire United States in the span of one day. There is no reason it be reversed just as quickly.
And I submit pro-lifers are building ways to help pregnant mothers in all ways.
Good line, btw: “… help society to decrease its dependence of abortion to solve its problems.”
PIP- I agree that things need to change- but murder cannot continue while we make those changes.
It’s much like how the freedom of slaves destroyed the economic system of the South, leaving both the white southerners and the newly-free slaves equally impoverished. The South “wasn’t ready” to end slavery, because it’s economic system relied on it. Is that justification to continue slavery until a more suitable time for the oppressors? No! Now, reconstruction was poorly handled (as evidenced by the race relations in the South, for example), but freeing the slaves the very moment they could was the right thing to do. Stopping murder of the unborn the very moment we can is the right thing to do- and we will implement changes to accommodate babies and working mothers. But babies shouldn’t be murdered in the meantime.
“Some may wonder if I’m abandoning the incrementalist political approach to abortion. I’m not. It’s all we pro-lifers on the streets have, only exascerbated by weak pro-life politicians. And there they are, wasting their tremendous influence and power.”
Amen Jill.
Hey PIP,
How about lowering taxes so families can afford to have the wife stay home and care for the children? you know, like it used to be.
We need to show the same kind of respect for life whether a child is in the womb, or whether in a coal mine, or in a long-term care facility. It’s about the fact that in our culture, the greatest testament that we can give is that we have an undying respect for every human life as having intrinsic worth and value.
And this is when I fell in love with Huckabee…
The anonymous was me…
“Abortion was forced on the entire United States in the span of one day. There is no reason it be reversed just as quickly.”
One reason, many, many people don’t want it reversed. (I know, many do)
“Stopping murder of the unborn the very moment we can is the right thing to do- and we will implement changes to accommodate babies and working mothers. But babies shouldn’t be murdered in the meantime.”
Good point.
However, I do stick to my guns that the abortion problem won’t be “cured” until these problems are fixed. And the faster they are fixed, the more support we will have from everyone.
“How about lowering taxes so families can afford to have the wife stay home and care for the children? you know, like it used to be.”
How long ago was that?
Because, you know, the bush tax cut pretty much only helped the rich.
Jasper, Most families don’t pay enough in taxes for a tax cut to help them enough for the woman to stay at home.
“How long ago was that?”
Before Pres. Johnson’s great society movement. Pre 1965.
“Because, you know, the bush tax cut pretty much only helped the rich.”
No, it helped create jobs, boosted revenue, etc.
“Jasper, Most families don’t pay enough in taxes for a tax cut to help them enough for the woman to stay at home.”
Well, you have a point. They have to cut down on the spending as well…
PIP-
Then you have to face the unpleasant reality that women don’t just abort because of a lack of resources and support (yes, that’s a part of it). Most women abort because the pregnancy will interfere with her life. Women with plenty of resources and support still have abortions because they do not want to be pregnant, be a mother, have another child, take maternity leave, have a child later in life, have a disabled child, have a girl child, have more than one child at a time, acknowledge an affair, be stuck with the father of the child, be a single mother, spend money on a child, get fat, interrupt their career, stop drinking, face dissappointed parents, be embarassed at church, and so on and so on.
So you can fix all the problems of a lack of resources and support (and that will reduce abortion), but it won’t elimate it. It simply must be deemed unacceptable and then society will be forced to find real solutions to problems. Furthermore, men and women won’t be so careless to conceive children in these unsavory circumstances when they don’t have abortion as a cop-out.
Cut down on spending just when they start having kids? Most families’ expenses INCREASE substantially when they start having kids.
Jacqueline, That was an excellent post!!
Thanks, Heather.
It’s sad, but true.
Hi Jacqueline. This is totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but how do you make it so that what you write is a link? Like above, you wrote ” Most women abort because the pregnancy will interfere with her life” and it was a link. You’d think I’d be more tech savvy because of my age. Evidently not. God love you.
Jacqueline, also, what on earth is abortion solving? I know women who abort, and 3 months later they are pregnant again. Either they have the child, or they abort again and again. I agree that making it illegal would force our society to face the real issues! It hasn’t prevented infanticide. It hasn’t stopped child abuse. It is an enabler! It allows women to do as they wish. It allows irresponsible men to walk away.
Jacqueline, abortion has actually created irresponsible sexual behavior in both of the sexes. I don’t know of a single woman who aborted D/T rape or incest. Not 1.
One more post before I go: Did anyone ever know a family where most of the women have aborted? I have a girlfriend. She is black and she came from a large family. She’s had 3 abortions, her sister had 5, her other sister had 2.
Heather- I agree completely! I apologize for writing that abortion “solves” anything. I have made extensive arguments about how abortion creates and enables problems and resolves nothing that can’t be resolved with a live baby in the arms of a waiting couple.
Bobby- I’ll have to show you the code with spaces, but you put the code without spaces.
It’s Type what you want the link to say, like Google Link
So a google link would be Google Link
Google Link
Only without the spaces. The only space is the one between the a and the href. By the way, you must have the quotes around the link.
Give it a couple tries!
P.S. Also, if you want to bold, it’s text and Italics is text . So it’ll look like text and text
Heather, you wrote: “[Abortion] allows women to do as they wish. ”
You just can’t stand the idea of women doing what they wish, can you?
Jaqueline,
Only without the spaces. The only space is the one between the a and the href. By the way, you must have the quotes around the link.
spell that out much slower, cuz I’d like to know also and I have absolutely no idea what you just said…
You just can’t stand the idea of women doing what they wish, can you?
If they wish to kill their own babies, then your d@mn right I just can’t stand that idea.
This will help!
HTML Tutorial
Link
That was fun! Thanks Jacqueline, I never would have thought of that!
Yay! Applause for Bobby!
Now if only I spoke Chinese…never mind, but thanks Jaqueline. I miss typewriters!
“that’s a nice aspiration but that’s not where America is right now.”
OK Romney, i’ll bite, THEN WHEN???
“No, it helped create jobs, boosted revenue, etc.”
No, employment went down and we reached record debts.
In 2002 unemployment was 5.8% (World Factbook)
In 2005 it was 6.1% (thinkandask.com)
Compared to 1998:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/Jan/wk2/art01.htm
Every since 1983 (Remember Reagan started this larger scale trickle-down economic pattern), the national debt has been exponentially increasing.
In 2005, we passed 8 TRILLION dollars.
Trickle-down economics generally doesn’t work because the individual taxpayers don’t generate enough money to cover the administration’s massive expenditures.
“Women with plenty of resources and support still have abortions because they do not want to be pregnant, be a mother, have another child, take maternity leave, have a child later in life, have a disabled child, have a girl child, have more than one child at a time, acknowledge an affair, be stuck with the father of the child, be a single mother, spend money on a child, get fat, interrupt their career, stop drinking, face dissappointed parents, be embarassed at church, and so on and so on.”
Oh, yes, I do know that.
BUT, if we are going to require women to carry out their pregnancies, they should at least have many of the same opportunities they would have if they were not pregnant. The need (not the want) of the abortions will go down. A lot of Americans I know don’t like abortion but would understand circumstances if pregnancy would make it nigh-impossible to have a good career or education. When you solve these sort of problems, I think more people will come to the conclusion that since abortion is not “needed” then making it illegal will make more sense. (I do expect Americans still wanting it legal in cases of rape or incest, but as has been pointed out before, very little abortions are because of these circumstances anyways).
Now, if we enable legislation that helps accomplish this simultaneously, I would love love love it.
enact*
Jill:
Could you seriously not find another state besides ALABAMA that had a sign like that? Jeebus, my state is always getting picked on!!
Oh, and some of those problems will be helped, too.
For example,
“take maternity leave”
If women have paid maternity leave, most likely this will be less of a proble.
“be a single mother”
It will always be hard, but we can create programs that will help them go back to school to get a higher paying job with better benefits or connect her to support groups or local affiliated charities (esp ones that provide free day care) so that she can work during the day and take care of her child after work.
“interrupt their career”
Some interruption probably will occur, but as feminists for life says, a woman shouldn’t have to choose between a career and a pregnancy.
Some those will be learned as they come (part of the consequences).
I also feel that campaigns to encourage consistant birth control use be implemented (I know a lot of you don’t like birth control, but, if it helps stop some abortions–which, taken correctly, usually does…)
Midnite,
who’s Jeebus?
Well I didnt want to anger people and say “Jesus” so instead around Christians I say “Jeebus”.
YVONNE ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL, THIS SUNDAY, 8PM CENTRAL TIME (AURORA PP)
I heard Yvonne Florczak-Seeman will be on “Hannity’s America” on the Fox News Channel this Sunday September 9th.
Yvonne had 5 abortions in her past and is now Pro-Life. Last year she was on “Catholic Answers Live” on 2-17-06. You can listen to the Audio Archives of the show by going to …
http://www.catholic.com
Click on “Radio”, click on “Guest Schedule”, go to “2-17-06”.
Double click on “A Time To Speak”.
Here is her website…
http://www.lovefromaboveinc.com/
Mike
Jeebus is from Homer Simpson.
Doug
Jacque, Oh my. I was not correcting you. I didn’t even see where you had written that. Keep those posts coming! They are fabulous!
Its extremely vile to say that ANY level of government should be able to decide whether to legalize a crime. Even moreso a capital crime!
I am glad those questions were asked so those responses could come forth. Especially loved Wendell Goler’s question. NICE! Big thumbs up to WG!
I am most glad this exchange occured because it made it much more clear for many people where the “individual states should decide” mindset comes from – from vote-pandering political strategies.
We gotta demand that congressman and candidates at ALL levels of government simply take a strong stand for life. That’s it. If that is done, everything else will fall in line to bring about the re-criminalization of abortion.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
I just remembered! Did you hear Sean Hannity’s reaction last night to the text message poll concerning which candidate won the debate?
Ron Paul came out on top with 34% and next was Romney, I think, with somewhere around 16%.
Hannity saw those numbers and reacted in disgust saying “this is just killing me” or something to that affect. He was so disgusted at the results!
HAHAHAHAHA!!
PIP,
You know I’m 100% on board with you and (in lieu of activism) financially support Feminists for Life as they make this sort of change through college outreach and federal legislation. I absolutely agree that women have babies, and should have the same opportunities men have without having to sacrifice themselves or their babies.
I think where we differ is the fact that I a. I see no need for abortions at all (one can parent with an abundance of social programs and financial aid and there is always adoption that solves all those other issues). b. I am a sidewalk counselor- and I’ve talked to aborting women about their reasons for aborting. Unlike FFL, I know for a fact that these women aren’t innocent victims of sexism who feel forced to abort to keep their jobs or position in school. They just don’t want to interrupt/inconvienence their lives by allowing their child to live for 9 months and place. They say that they “need” to have an abortion and state their reasons, “I’m in college” “I’m not ready to be a mother.” “I don’t think I can afford a baby.” And I explain ways to alleviate those problems- and conclude with “There’s nothing this abortion won’t solve that wouldn’t be solved by placing for adoption.” And the women always state that they’d rather kill their baby than place. I reitterate, “Then you realize that you don’t HAVE to have an abortion. You are choosing to. You can choose life.” Ironically, those women on the sidewalk that choose life for their babies nearly 100% of the time CHOOSE TO PARENT- so those circumstances that were so dire that the justified killing the baby apparently aren’t so bad that they’d place for adoption. I think a majority of the reasons women give are a conscience-soother because deep down, every women knows it’s wrong to kill and throw away her baby. So these reasons rationalize a decision that never needs to be made.
I think the bottom line is that women abort because they don’t want to be pregnant at any given time- and all societal reform won’t change that. Women have the luxury of creating life and destroying it when it’s not the exact right time, the baby’s the wrong gender, circumstances change (he left me) and so forth. They have the luxury of having indiscriminate sex knowing that they won’t have the consequences. Interestingly, though, many women who think they’ll abort if they get pregnant- simply can’t do it, and end up as single mothers. This also necessitates more and more reform to support these women.
I think we imply that women are ignoramuses that don’t know what they’re doing, or that they are incapable of being held responsible when we state that there are justifiable circumstances in which they can kill their own baby. We are implying their is a need for abortion. There really is no need and it’s never okay to kill a baby.
Candlelight Vigil at PP-Aurora on Friday, September 7th, at 9:15PM
——-
Most Reverend J. Peter Sartain, Bishop of Joliet, has requested a day of prayer and penance on Friday, September 7th, for the promotion of a Culture of Life and an end to abortion. As one of many responses to this request, a Candlelight Vigil will be held at the Planned Parenthood Aurora abortion site on that day, starting at 9:15PM. The facility is located at 3051 E. New York St., Aurora, IL.
This special Vigil will unite Catholics from the Joliet Diocese and all people of good will in public witness to the power of prayer.
The Vigil provides a supplement to–not a replacement for–the many parish commemorations of the September 7th day of prayer and penance.
Pretty in Pink,
By the way, you really are pretty. I should have told you earlier. :)
Guys and Gals,
I grew up in Massachusetts and was there until a couple years ago, I recently moved, but my parents are still there and I still go an visit whenever I can…But my opinion on Romney, is he’s doing the flip flop all over the place…When he was governor of MA he was positively and adamantly pro-abort. I’m not trying to influence anyone’s vote in anyway, I would never tell someone who to vote for…But I just feel it’s important that when a candidate proclaims to be “this or that” it’s important to look at their track record…sometimes they are just pandering to what they thing the voters want, and I feel this is what Romney is doing. This would explain why he would say “America is not ready” (because he doesn’t believe in it himself!). In my mind it cannot be more obvious that he is not proclaiming to be pro-life because he feels it is right in his heart, but because he feels it will win him votes! Well I guess I just made it clear I won’t be voting for Romney…
Jacqueline-
Here, I totally agree with you. I think a lot of women like to rationalize their choices when there is really no excuse!
I just think that some of the environments that are hostile towards pregnant women need to change. Then their rationalization is not only denial but truly very false. By making it easier to cope with the situation we can say, “You REALLY don’t have an excuse. You have more resources now. A pregnancy and single motherhood are much more accepted and you have more resources so that you can stay in school (etc), but adoption is always available to you.” Obviously there are many many women aborting for purely selfish reasons, and it must end. By doing so, many of these selfish reasons will be eliminated–so there is no excuse to have abortion legal. (I agree there is no excuse, I am talking about many people’s opinion and some general problems with pregnancy continuation that should be fixed anyways)
I think that things are starting to change already! And my post is more directed at politics in general. That is why I would love simultaneous or nearly simultaneous legislation. I think more Americans would be willing to support it, including the politicians. Anti-abortion legislation will then be much easier to pass, and we can get it passed sooner. That is my theory anyway.
Jacquie (can I call you that?),
Thank you! I must say you are very pretty yourself!
I feel like I have to add another comment here with regard to what a few people have brought up in the conversation. It concerns sexual assault (rape) and a few people mentioned that the majority of women who have abortions do not have them because of rape. Yes this is very true I totally agree…I also know, and I think you all will agree that sexual violence is very pervasive in our culture, especially when you think of all those kids going online and getting in some really bad situations (not that the kids should be doing this, I’m not justifying it) but also rape is more common than one would think…there were nearly 250,000 women in the year 2000 (and then you also have to consider that there are even more unreported) Of course this doesn’t mean that every one of them will get pregnant, but a certain percentage will. Anyway, my point is that rape is something that happens to women of all walks of life and although there are ways to mitigate against certain situations, many victims are young girls, kids really…Someone said a few posts ago that they don’t know anyone who has aborted because of rape or incest, well I do…I’m not sure if this is because I’m a teacher in a poor community and so I am around young girls a lot, but I do know girls who have been in this situation and I do know quite a few that have chosen to abort. I’ve never had an abortion myself and never would, but I am a survivor myself and was lucky that a pregnancy didn’t result. I guess this is why I felt a sort of duty to point out these sad facts because of my experience. (btw, it was a stranger and was totally out of the blue) To bring up another point that swings the other way, On another note, I have also known survivors who have chosen not to abort despite the circumstances…actually someone very close to my heart (who I have nothing but love and admiration for) is the product of these exact circumstances and I don’t know where I would be today if the mother (and I know this sounds harsh to speak about a victim) had decided to kill this person. Thank god she didn’t! Of course I don’t expect every victim to make this difficult decision but perhaps it’s comforting to know that at least there can be some positive to come out of such negative experiences. Actually, It’s not something I speak about often and I know it might sound very forthcoming being new to this blog, but I can’t help but be anything but honest and forthcoming. And of course I’m always interested in what others feel and certainly on this issue, I think it’s important.
Welcome, Nicole!
Nicole,
I never meant to trivialize rape victims, if that is what you read from my post.
I simply think that we should make allowances in the law for rape and incest victims. Because relatively few abortions are from pregnant rape victims, I was pointing out that the legislation I propose will have a wide range of support.
I simply think that we should make allowances in the law for rape and incest victims. Because relatively few abortions are from pregnant rape victims
The criminals that rape and incest don’t get the death penalty- why should the innocent child? I oppose abortion because it’s murder- always. It’s no less murder because of the child’s conception.
Because there are relatively few babies concieved in those circumstances doesn’t merit killing them. There are relatively few PIPs (only one actually), but to kill you would take everything from you.
It’s like the starfish on the beach- “It made a difference to that one!” Just because there are only a few babies doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to live and desire to live anymore than anyone else.
There are more compassionate ways to help a woman violated by sexual assault than to assault her again and kill her child.
I give you a Feminists for Life flyer on this issue.
“The criminals that rape and incest don’t get the death penalty”
Nobody should get the death penalty. But those criminals should go to jail.
” I oppose abortion because it’s murder- always. It’s no less murder because of the child’s conception.”
Most pro-lifers will agree that abortion is wrong–no matter what. But legality is an issue, here, that must be thought through critically. These women are not responsible for their pregnancies, and I can’t even imagine what kind of issues they would be having. Furthermore some people are just too young to carry a child (a woman can get their period as early as 8 years old). So I think since the law should have a basis in responsibility, and these women are not responsible, then we need to make allowances in the law for that.
“Because there are relatively few babies concieved in those circumstances doesn’t merit killing them. There are relatively few PIPs (only one actually), but to kill you would take everything from you.”
I agree! Every child is precious.
Again, though, these issues I am putting forth are legal issues. Most prolifers and centrists can understand how the allowance (not the force) in the case of rape and incest would be handled in a legal setting. Currently, I am not sure any pro-life legislation that bans abortion in the case of rape or incest could ever be passed. An all-or-nothing will be extremely hard to pass, and I think it may even cause division throughout the pro-life movement itself.
“Just because there are only a few babies doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to live and desire to live anymore than anyone else.”
I agree.
“There are more compassionate ways to help a woman violated by sexual assault than to assault her again and kill her child”
I think counseling and other options should be emphasized. But because it is a sensitive area that I have never been before, it might be hard for me to force a rape victim to carry a child that they are not responsible for. Luckily, many people choose to carry it, and by counseling and options, more people than now will also carry it. But still, it’s all about legal issues…
Obviously I will never condemn, force, or encourage a rape victim to abort, as I think it more often than not cause more psychological problems to many of the mothers. And neither should anyone else. But again, a piece of legislation that doesn’t make allowances for circumstances beyond a woman’s control will be VERY unlikely to pass, and nothing will be accomplished. Law and punishment is mostly about responsibility. Nobody deserves to die at the hands of another, and we most definately agree on that–and I second the flyer as well. But do you understand the point I’m trying to make?
PIP,
I do understand the point you’re trying to make. I just disagree. And so would Rebecca.
Here’s why:
“So I think since the law should have a basis in responsibility, and these women are not responsible, then we need to make allowances in the law for that.”
Responsibility is not why I’m pro-life. I think it’s why a majority of Republicans are, including my father- and we had this same debate.
I am pro-life because the unborn have a right to live. Period. I don’t care the circumstances of a child’s conception- a child is a child. Abortions kill all children equally dead, whether conceived in rape or conceived in a loving relationship.
Yes, I desire that people be responsible. But you drinking yourself piss drunk every night and your bills don’t get paid, etc.- Irresponsible? Yes. But none of my business. You drinking yourself drunk and climbing into a car, potentially killing yourself and others- Absolutely my business. I would insist you be arrested and charged for that, because you’re irresponsibility is hurting an innocent party.
Now, you getting drunk, have sex and become pregnant by a stranger- Irresponsible? Yes. But none of my business. Now, you get drunk, have sex, become pregnant by a stranger and have the baby torn limb from limb by abortion- Absolutely my business. This should not be legal, because it hurts an innocent party.
I oppose abortion because it hurts (kills) an innocent party, not because carrying a child is the responsible thing to do. If abortions could be performed without hurting or killing the baby, I wouldn’t support its criminalization. I might think it irresponsble and wish people didn’t do it, but I’d have no basis to call for its end. But all abortions kill a baby- even those babies conceived through criminal acts. I sympathize with a woman pregnant through rape, but her baby has a right to live.
What you’re saying when you say rape/incest victims can abort their children but women who have consensual sex can not is, “You made your bed- Now lie in it! Own up to the consequences of your actions.” Pregnancy is not a punishment for consesual sex that women “deserve” for having sex that rape victims should be spared. This is a child. So it’s not “That’ll learn ya!” but “Your baby has a right to live and not be killed.”
Whether the mother is a responsible rape victim or some crack whore, those babies have an equal right to life. Forcing responsibility doesn’t justify killing those children.
About the law- I agree that a law change without a rape/incest exception is unlikely to pass (look at South Dakota). So I would attempt to pass a law to save 99% of the babies and go back for the 1%. I don’t have the moral authority to dismiss or condemn those babies, but politically I recognize that incrementalism is there only chance.
“Responsibility is not why I’m pro-life”
It’s not the main reason I am either. But it is the basis of many (if not all) laws.
” But you drinking yourself piss drunk every night and your bills don’t get paid, etc.- Irresponsible? Yes”
Yes, but the law holds those responsible for damage to public property or other people (aka assault, rape etc). The law doesn’t say, “we are punishing you because you got really drunk.” The law says “we are punishing you because you did something illegal, and you should be accountable for what you do to other people.” Again the drunk driving–you are persecuted because the law holds the person responsible for their actions.
“This should not be legal, because it hurts an innocent party.”
Exactly. The law would, essentially, be holding that person responsible for the life of the other person.
Let’s try another one. Say a person has sex and gets AIDS. Okay, obviously not against the law, but the lack of say, a condom is “irresponsible”. Say the person knows they have it and willingly infects another person. That’s a problem, and the person is held responsible.
If you are responsible to the damage of private (or public for that matter) property, tresspassing, assault, drug trafficking, stealing, etc, the law holds you, the citizen accountable. If the people making the laws feels that the citizens should be held accountable for actions, then it is a viable candidate or reason for legislation. If things get beyond a person’s control, these are often taken into account when they are passing legislation too.
“I oppose abortion because it hurts (kills) an innocent party, not because carrying a child is the responsible thing to do”
I think we are using two different kinds of the word responsibility. I use responsibility in the sense that–this person is responsible for what happened to another person. So, if what they did was illegal, the law punishes–holds hte person responsible (aka accountable) for their actions.
But the use of responsible as in–I am a responsible person, because I always do what is right and moral in God’s eyes. Or, I am a responsible person, because I do what is best for the community and the people around me. Or, I am responsible, because I always take care of myself. Those do not cross into the realm of legality, which is what my discussion centers around.
” If abortions could be performed without hurting or killing the baby, I wouldn’t support its criminalization.”
Exactly. Our view is that, the baby is not harmed, so it is okay. Legal view would be that the accountability is fulfilled because the other party and others in society were not harmed by the adoption/removal and implantation/whatever technology is available. In fact, depending on the circumstances, these are socially and personally beneficial. See the difference?
It’s how I feel about capital punishment. I think killing another person is wrong. The law looks at killing from several aspects that must be brought to the table. I think, legally, life in prison is still holding those responsible for the deaths of others accountable–and they are still being punished. There is essentially no need for it. It today serves as a sort of revenge and is not a deterrent. And many politicians and citizens are starting to agree and take action against it.
“What you’re saying when you say rape/incest victims can abort their children but women who have consensual sex can not is, “You made your bed- Now lie in it! Own up to the consequences of your actions.””
We are not making the women keep their babies…we are not saying it is a punishment, but reminding them that life is a blessing. Is that not what pro-lifers want to bring to legislation? They have other options than to be “forced” to be a single mother. Because their abortion would harm the life that they were responsible for creating, the law would hold them accountable.
” Pregnancy is not a punishment for consesual sex that women “deserve” for having sex that rape victims should be spared.”
I agree, so that is not what I am trying to say at all.
“This is a child. So it’s not “That’ll learn ya!” but “Your baby has a right to live and not be killed.””
The end part of the sentence–absolutely. I completely agree! Again, although I believe responsibility is part of it, my main reason is that no person deserves to die at the hands of another. Again, this subject is not terribly simplistic though, either. Because most laws are at least partially based in accountability, anti-abortion laws must take it into account.
“So I would attempt to pass a law to save 99% of the babies and go back for the 1%”
Here we go–this was my entire point of these posts. Laws. Practicalities of the anti-abortion movement. Sometimes, we just can’t save them all. Society isn’t perfect. That’s because humans are imperfect, and so is life. And hence, the point of Jesus coming to save us right?