Monday, March 2, 2009

Abortion as a social policy - VOTE NOW.

I won't label this as Pro-Choice or Pro-Life because I hate the two categories, they are too absolute and too polarizing. In terms of governance, I don't believe the issue is so black and white.

Now I want you to do something that may be hard for some of you, but step outside of the morality box and do not look at this as Pro-Choice or Pro-Life but look at it from a legislative standpoint.

Would you allow or disallow abortions and give your reasoning...

4 comments:

Christopher Maloy said...

Hot topic central.

I think what you are asking is to take the religious and moral dogma out of the equation and come up with a responsible way to handle this issue (merely from a responsible government point of view).

I think Roe v Wade did exactly that. Most people thought the ruling was about abortion and what it was really about was privacy.

I agree and support the Roe v Wade decision as a responsible one. The court case defined the viability of life and allowed individuals the right to privacy and choice early on in pregnancy and restricted abortions for late-term fetuses (in effort to protect life).

That decision was a very responsible way to give the people their cake and allow them to eat it too.

The ruling did have one major failing. When they defined viability, and defined the trimester system of pregnancy, we did not have the technology and science to make life viable as early as we can today. Science has redefined what is viable.

Personally, I am against partial birth abortions but more sympathetic to a woman's right to choose in the first trimester.

I know this may sound harsh, but in a very small way I feel that if parents don't want their unborn children then I don't want their genes in our genepool either.

One other thing to consider here on this point is the value of life. We live in a first world country and life is held in a very high regard. We take lots of precautions to protected life from accidents and such. We give tax breaks to bigger families and encourage adoption over abortion and such. I wonder how our value system would change if we were to live in a culture like India or China? Our definition of the value of life would change. People are a dime a dozen.


Great post.

Jared said...

I honestly can't say my side any better than Chis already has. Especially this phrase:

"Most people thought the ruling was about abortion and what it was really about was privacy."

Plus it is hard, as a man, to be keenly knowledgeable of such a highly personal female issue. I feel like a hypocrite when I speak on it, despite the fact a baby is half mine as well. This is a woman's body, and that will always trump my sperm donation in my mind.

Matt Shelby said...

I've started my response to this issue quite a few times now and have continued to delete it time and time again. This is definately a hot topic as Chris put it!

I understand the thought process behind moral and religious issues being seperated from government. However, with that said, where ultimately are we to draw the line to that seperation? I can see (and agree with) religion being tossed aside. It's easier to toss out, but when it comes to moral issues....I don't think it's humanly possible. Either way you look at it, our decisions either are for or against any moral issue that we have ever been taught. I guess the real question is, could we make a decision that is fair but still went against our personal moral that we believe in?

Chris makes some valid points about privacy and a womans right to choose, especially during the first trimester. I get it...I really do...but let's be honest with ourselves, could we/can we really stand by and allow grown women (consenting adults) to use abortion as a form of birth control? Again, where is that line drawn?

Also, Jared brings up the fact that it's a womans body and that trumps his sperm donation. Many Americans feel the same way but I have to say, I completely disagree. Why is it, that so much emphasis is put on the mother but not the father? It took two to tango! Why shouldn't it take two to make the decision? Plenty of friends of mine have knocked up a woman but had no say so in the abortion that took place. Why? It's ok once the child is born for the father to be responsible, but not when the child is in the womb? I think father's should ultimately have some say in the matter.

You all are father's. If your wives wanted to have an abortion, do you feel you should have a say in the matter? Or is the privacy and rights on the matter still just for the mother?

I, personally, have always felt that if a woman was a victim of rape or incest, or if her life was in jeopardy based on the pregnancy that it should be HER choice. I'm ok with a womans right to choose there. But if she consentually had sex and became pregnant....there's other avenues to travel down, such as adoptions. Old saying goes like this, "Do the crime, do the time."

We don't allow murderers, drug dealers, pedophiles, etc. the chance for a get out of "jail free card" (except when our justice system fails us!) based on the mistakes they made. Why should a woman who makes an "adult" decision be any different?

My opinion is I would not support abortion except for the instances stated earlier, rape, incest or the mother's health. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Women who spread the legs should be no different.

Bottom line, the basic laws and rules that we live by on a daily basis are ALL moral issues. If we don't look at this issue with some type of value on life and morality, then maybe we should start to rethink the whole, "Thou shall not kill" law that we abide by. You know me....I'm all for killing sprees as long as the law allows it!

I hope that was along the lines of what you were looking for......

Nicole Shelby said...

Personally, I would never get an abortion - regardless of circumstances. (I know, I know, we talking social-good not personal preference...I had to lead with it anyway.) Without morals - you sure like to make things difficult. I'm with Matt everything is morally connected. But, let's give it a whirl anyway.

I believe that abortion should be allowable - but severely restricted. And trying to determine the allowable circumstances is tricky. Roe v. Wade was a responsible determination.

When the choices that led to the pregnancy were voluntary - then, the choices for the consequences is no longer. There has to be accountabilty. And yes, I think men are more than just sperm-donors. Voluntary involvement before, voice during gestation, and responsibility following. If the woman willingly accepted a man's "involvement" during the "fun part," then, his opinion has weight in any following decisions.

When the choices that led to the pregnancy were involuntary - then, the choice for the consequences comes into play. Here's where the woman's right should be an issue. If she were raped for example: she gets a say, the scumbag doesn't, and early-on abortion is one of her options.

Obtaining an abortion should not be an easy thing. If we value life as highly as Chris suggests that we do (and I don't believe any country, as a whole, doesn't value life - individuals aside)...then, our decisions should reflect it. No life is a waste. Regardless of parental stupidity or indiscretion - their sins shouldn't coat their offspring. We are not in the Old Testament. (And the whole genepool thing? Chris - you Nazi. Though the pollution of the genepool bears a striking affinity to the biblical generational sin-consequences). Oh dang...got into moralizing...sorry! Back to responsbility...

What I was trying to say was: the parents now, and future, convenience should not be an issue when determining their right for an abortion. The circumstances surrounding conception should.

Shoot...baby's screaming. Guess that's the end of my ramble. TJ - how'd I do?