I liked Robin's post, and am interested to hear the thoughts of the loyal readers that may not, in fact, frequent both of our blogs. Here was my comment on her post, which made reference to Roe v. Wade and Robin's statement that she always trusts the woman to make the right decision for her situation:
My turn!
I come down on Robin's side of this one. While I do agree that people in general should be held responsible for their actions, I think doing so in the case of an unwanted pregnancy causes more harm than good. It's a little trite, but there's been a great line thrown around: How can pro-lifers only care about the fetus UNTIL it's born, and not thereafter?
Forcing a woman to bear a child for which she is emotionally or financially unprepared, or has been thrust upon her (pardon the diction) through rape or incest, is NOT a recipe for a healthy, happy, constructive childhood. Can the child overcome these things to go on and become a productive member of society? Certainly they could...but why should they have to? Shouldn't every child be wanted?
I don't believe the government (who conservatives DON'T trust to get involved with properly distributing health care funds, administrating education, or making the right decisions regarding the legal status of cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs) is best positioned to make a decision on behalf of an individual woman.
However, I WOULD be willing to entertain the idea of eliminating abortion as a practice IF the government committed to providing full financial support for any child who would have been aborted, but was not because of the government's decree.
Would this be problematic? Hell yes. How do you differentiate between people who WOULD have gotten an abortion, and those who are only CLAIMING they would have for the sake of the "subsidy"? It'd be well-nigh impossible. Would this represent an enormous drain on the economy? Certainly.
But, if you're going to claim, as the government, that you know better than this woman what's right for the life of the child, despite NOT being aware of the financial, familial, and emotional context in which the child will be raised, I think you ought to put your money where your mouth is.
I'm open to comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I largely agree.
Were you expecting that???? ;)
Seriously though, I have to keep telling people I'm not pro-choice as much as I am pro-individual freedom. As you point out, if I believe the govt. shouldn't get involved with forcing healthcare on everyone, or controlling our retirement funds, or telling us what we can watch on TV (and I do believe those things), then why should they decide what women do with their embryos? And I don't believe it's a "God mandate" that we should keep these people from going to Hell for killing innocent children, because a) I'm not the judge of that and b) What you do with your own unborn children is between you and God; I don't have anything to do with that relationship, nor should I.
However.
I think there are some reasonable limits that can be placed on when an abortion becomes unacceptable (such as, you know, first trimester in), for the simple reason that it encourages individual responsibility. How did partial-birth abortion come about, anyway? Someone was undecided whether or not to have a baby for nine months and suddenly came to a realization on the hospital bed? Frankly, I think if you haven't made a decision after nine months of pregnancy, well... you really have made a decision, haven't you?
I'm open to comment too. This is fun!
--Ryan
The thing that turns me off the most about the pro-life movement is that it does seem to be more about vindictiveness than the life of the fetus. I don't think they want people to stop having abortions as much as they want them to stop having sex in the first place. And if people DO have sex, then they want them to be punished for it. It's twisted. Newsflash: Sex has been an issue since Genesis. The world isn't going to suddenly stop shagging in 2008.
Anyway. My feeling is that when every child who is born has a loving home with clothes, food and access to good education, then maybe I'll listen to the pro-life argument. But for now, let's concentrate on the children who are falling through the cracks.
[I have a horribly offensive, Christianity-based, amoral argument for being pro-choice, too, but Dave says I shouldn't share it publicly. :-)]
I think I've posted a particularly un-vindictive response on my blog!
Post a Comment