A new bill would give Ohio the most restrictive abortion laws in the country by banning abortions when a heartbeat is detected. The question is: Why does the heartbeat matter?
As a thinker I place an extraordinarily high value on having issues framed as clearly as possible. Too often I hear people argue about a subject without properly framing the issue. Listen, for example, to the back-and-forth in the debates in Columbus and Madison: You want to break the unions’ backs! You don’t care if you bankrupt the state! Meanwhile, the issue is really about decision making authority, as I explained here, but few people “debate” that point.
Even if you decide what the “issue” is, you still have to be careful about how you frame it. In law school we called it the “Question Presented,” which is the legal issue you ask a judge to decide. Like good little students we tilted the question in our favor. For example, imagine you were a judge hearing a challenge to the ObamaCare insurance purchase mandate, and were presented with these differing formulations:
• Does the mandate exceed Congress’s authority to regulate commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause by regulating commercial inactivity?
• Is the mandate a proper exercise of Congress’s authority to regulate commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause by regulating the conscious decision to not purchase health insurance?
As you can see, wording matters.
I promised the host of Political Realities, LD Jackson, a while back that I would write a “controversial” post regarding abortion when the appropriate time came. The time is right because Ohio is considering a bill that would give Ohio one of the toughest abortion bills in the nation, and restrict abortion to before a heartbeat can be detected (see here). I have difficulty addressing the merits of the bill because I don’t think the issue of abortion has yet to be properly framed here in Ohio (or anywhere else).
When it comes to abortion, in my opinion, neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life groups give sufficient weight to the other side, thus the debate is mostly people talking past one another. The sole purpose of this post is to frame the abortion debate in as complete and neutral of a manner as possible, and not in a suggestive manner as with the two “Questions Presented” regarding the ObamaCarer mandate above.
(Warning: I’m a straight-shooting libertarian who will probably ruffle some feathers today!)
Roe v. Wade and the “blob of tissue” Myth
For those unfamiliar, the “factual” logic of Justice Blackmun’s controversial decision was this: until a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, one can reasonably argue whether or not the fetus is “alive.” Therefore, a state cannot arbitrarily pick one definition of “life” and hold it against a pregnant woman, and thus, states cannot restrict abortions before everyone agrees a fetus is “alive” (which Blackmun estimated to be around the end of the first trimester). This is the basis for the argument of many pro-choicers that an early-stage pregnancy is a “blob of tissue.”
A current bill in Ohio (see here) seems to barking up the same tree by suggesting that everyone would agree that a fetus is alive when it has a heartbeat. The problem is that proponents of the Ohio bill go down the silly Roe “blob of tissue” path by trying to establish a “universally agreed upon” point at which life starts.
Let me make it simple: life begins at conception, and there is no serious debate about that point. All this “heartbeat,” “survival outside the womb,” and “blob of tissue” nonsense is just what I called it, nonsense.
We may never agree to a definition of “life,” but then again, we may never agree to a definition of “love.” But that does not mean that life doesn’t have specific, identifiable characteristics. To have life you must have a highly complex structure that stores and transfers enormous amounts of information, consumes energy, and self-replicates. (As soon as sperm hits egg, the initial cell contains more information than is needed to build Manhattan, so spare me the “what is an enormous amount of information” argument.)
Independent existence outside the womb, or a heartbeat, is not necessary for life. For example, consider a lichen—a mutual joining of an algae and a moss. Separate them and they die, yet no one argues that a lichen—as well as its subcomponents—is alive in spite of the inability to live separately, (or the lack of a heartbeat). For that matter, consider the bacteria in your stomach. Pull some out and put them into a petrie dish and they will die. Pull them all out and so will you! The idea that a fetus must be capable of surviving outside the womb for us to all agree that it is “alive” is nonsense.
Let me frame it in the negative: Upon conception, what about the cell isn’t alive? Not capable of living outside the womb? So what. No heartbeat? So what. Not “human” enough yet? Check the DNA. The “blob of tissue” argument is an intellectual cop-out.
When you abort a fetus, you kill a tiny human. Period. That does not answer the question of legality of abortion, however.
The Inalienable Right to Physical Autonomy
Just as Pro-choicers frequently ignore basic biology, Pro-lifers frequently ignore one of the very Constitutional rights that so many claim to hold dear. While eager to point out that the Constitution protects the right to life—which it does—abortion foes give little weight to the right to the inalienable right to control one’s physical being, which I call the right to physical autonomy; the right to do what you wish with your body without interference from the government or any other person.
(Pro-choicers frequently refer to “reproductive rights,” but that is a subset of the larger right to physical autonomy. I suspect that many use the narrower term because they are liberals who would be agreeable to letting the government put a tracking microchip in everyone’s head, which would be difficult to justify if they acknowledged the broader right.)
So yes, you heard me say it: A woman has an inalienable right to an abortion. (She also has an inalienable right to chop off her left hand, and both are manifestations of physical autonomy.) Imagine that our old friends Steve and Susie Citizen became stranded on an island. Susie has an inalienable right to her physical autonomy, and thus, can resist his amorous affections. If she succumbs and becomes pregnant, she has an inalienable right to resist his efforts to force her to carry it to term. The question is whether a state should protect the unborn fetus’s right to life at the expense of the pregnant woman’s right to physical autonomy.
Let me make it clear. If you support abortion restrictions, you are saying that you advocate the use of a state’s police power to effectively occupy a woman’s womb and force her to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.
Morality
Whether or not abortion is moral is a question for each individual to decide. If you think killing a human life is immoral, then abortion is immoral—as is counseling others to do so. The only thing I want to bring to the table today is: To what extent should morality play a role in our governance, and who should decide what morality to follow?
Practically speaking, the fact that an act is homicide has not stood up as sufficient reason to ban the killing in all cases. For example, here in Ohio we have the “Castle Doctrine,” where defense of property is a defense to a homicide charge. So yes, you can kill someone who breaks into your house to steal your flat-screen television. One way or another, the Castle Doctrine must be squared with applicable abortion laws, because both define the appropriate boundaries for private homicide (I’ll leave capital punishment out of it).
Framing the Question: A Clash of Rights
Abortion, then, is a clash of two distinct rights: The right to life of the unborn fetus, and the right to physical autonomy of the pregnant woman. The “right to life” and “right to choice” crowds do a splendid job of making out the case for their preferred halves of the debate, but usually without adequately tackling the other. The “blob of tissue” argument, for example, is just a clever way to avoid the fact that an early-term abortion is a form of homicide (justifiable or not). The “heartbeat” argument is just a way to push the time when a state can restrict abortion closer to conception without explaining why it’s permissible to violate a woman’s right to physical autonomy in the first place.
The “Question Presented” for abortion, then, in my fairest and best formulation is:
Should a state, and to what extent, intrude on a woman’s inalienable right to physical autonomy and use its police powers to effectively occupy her womb and force her to carry a pregnancy to term in order to protect the inalienable right to life of the unborn living child who is defenseless to prevent an act of homicide.
I’ll be very interested in hearing if you think I’ve gotten the question framed properly.
Interesting post. Although I think I would frame the matter differently. You say:
You correctly point out that such arguments are a matter of a time line, but that ultimately it is a child at stake.
Presumably, you would not argue that a parent bears responsibility for his/her child?
A mother does not have the right to arbitrarily terminate a child’s life after it leaves the womb, does she? A 1 year old, is after all a living child who is defenseless to prevent an act of homicide. Is a child in the womb of less value than one outside the womb? Is a one year old worth less than a 2 year old? A 2 year old than a 4 year old?
One person’s rights end where exercising them “unduly” impinges on the rights of another. An action that results in the death of another person constitutes “unduly.”
-
Martin: thank you for taking the time to consider my arguments carefully, and to respond without becoming hostile – I know this is a difficult and emotional subject.
You hit upon an important point, namely, the differences between “rights” and “duties.” Moral duties may be different than legal duties.
While I do not think an unborn child is of less “value” than one who is born, an unborn child impinges on the physical autonomy of the mother if the child is unwanted. Perhaps you weight life rights greater than other rights, but I dont want to put words in your mouth.
In your last line you note that “An action that results in the death of another person constitutes “unduly.” Do I take that to mean that you oppose Ohio’s Castle doctrine, where you can use lethal force in defense of property?
There is no need to become hostile
You are someone that I admire, and the ability to have an honest discussion about issues is what separates “us” from “them” e.g. knee jerk liberals who have no real philosophical grounding for their beliefs from classical liberals who take the time to examine “why” they believe what they do.
All that aside, I admit a moral component to my thinking, although I do think it is possible to argue this issue from a libertarian perspective.
In general I agree with Steve on the matter of taking it out of the hands of the Federal Government. It is much easier to fight such battles on a state level.
While I hadn’t thought explicitly about the right to exist being greater in importance than other rights, I suppose that makes sense. It seems fundamental that an innocent person should not forfeit that right for another’s convenience.
With regard to the Castle Doctrine in Ohio, I think that actions have consequences, and by choosing to engage in an illegal and harmful activity you may forfeit your rights. So, I do support the right to eliminate someone who’s broken into my home.
Great post! I also have a libertarian streak, so here is my take on abortion. Personally I feel as if abortion is wrong and immoral, I believe that it is murder. But at the same time I do not believe that I have the right to force my beliefs or my morals on another person, therefor I have a hard time saying that abortion should be illegal.
However, I also believe in state’s rights and feel that the issue of abortion should be taken out of the hands of the federal government and returned to the states, which should be free to implement restrictions on abortion as they see fit.
And also, there is no way in h*ll that federal money should be spent on abortion, I find it disgusting that the government might be using money they took from me to help another person get an abortion.
Steve: I agree with you that abortion is immoral, and I also feel that advising someone to go the abortion route as a first choice is also immoral. I also agree with you that federal funding is a bad idea.
My problem is, I’m not real concerned with the issue as you have framed it. I am pro-life, and yet I am not in favor of federal legislation forbidding it. Reasonable regulation is fine, however. As to what is reasonable, well just ask the imaginary “reasonable man,” I reckon. Wink.
The problem as I see it is one of culture and education. Enlighten and educate the people as to the importance of family and the physical realities of the life inside them, and most will not choose abortion. I’d think that requiring the person to view a sonogram before undergoing the abortion procedure would be a reasonable regulation.
This doesn’t cover “morning after” pills, though. May just have to leave that unregulated, except of course regarding the safety of the drug overall.
Wouldn’t it be nice to just not have to pay for abortion thru fed tax dollars, for starters?
I couldn’t agree with you more on culture and education. My little boy turns 4 on Saturday, and he’s already getting an intro to the “birds and the bees” via nature show. He already understands that families are important, and we will continue to nurture that view. It is my moral responsibility (in my belief system) to raise a young man who will not put a girl or woman in a position where the issue of abortion would even be on the table.
Your belief that it is your moral responsibility to teach your son to never put a girl or woman in such a position is an honorable one. I can not express how much I commend you for that attitude.
Country Thinker, you have covered about every issue pertinent to the abortion battle. I’ll add one more, and it is the bottom line for me. Women do not conceive and grow anything but babies in their uteruses. I don’t believe there is a time when the conception is not a baby. The bud on an apple tree is an apple. It’s pretty simple.
What’s not simple is that abortion today is legal, but those of us who abhor it are forced to pay for the abortions of others. The decisions of others now become a moral dilemma for us. We are paying for abortions for those overseas, and we are funding them through Planned Parenthood.
Women wanting abortions will never end, but funding an abortion for another can and should end. I agree with Linda.
Maggie, I agree with you that a baby is a baby upon conception. That’s why I think Roe’s conclusion that there can be disagreement about whether a fetus is “alive” before it is capable of life outside the womb is nonsense.
Picking a heartbeat is just an arbitrary point so supporters can say “it has a heartbeat” it’s a baby. We all know that as soon as conception begins you have life. Picking any point in time to make an abortion illegal is arbitrary. The problem with the abortion debate is you will never convince anybody to change their mind, or will only be able to so very rarely.
While I can see both sides of the issue the point that if somebody wants an abortion they will get one so do you make it a safe option or not? If they cannot get an abortion and cannot or do not want the child then who will really look after it once its born if its not adopted?
I have no answers and while I might not like the idea of abortion I cannot bring myself to wish it were illegal.
Harrison, you show all the signs of being a true political realist! There’s nothing wrong with that!
Just wanted to say great post sir. I genuinely appreciate anyone who is willing to have a reasonable conversation that could potentially cause them to be painted in an unfavorable or unreflective light. In libertarian/conservative circles, such a conversation typically leads to responses far less open-minded than those presented above; so I would also compliment everyone who has participated here for their restraint.
I share in some of the above sentiments as I am a pro-life conservative who happens to believe this is a state issue. I cringe at the thought of a federal government trying to find a national consensus on such a matter; and frankly believe I would not like the outcome if one were arrived at. I know you were avoiding the death penalty aspect of this, but I do believe it is somewhat worth mentioning. We do not have a nation-wide standard for DP policy and I am certain we never will – and if we do, it will likely be that the DP is prohibited.
The reason that I bring that up is that the abortion debate is often framed in terms of “A Right to Life” or preservation of life. Many on the Right who make these arguments and frame the debate this way are the same people who make an intellectually inconsistent argument in favor of DP statutes. The two simply cannot co-exist; not if consistency is the end result, and certainly not if “Preservation of Life” is the objective.
Man is ultimately making the call on life in either case, and I know personally that I am ill-prepared for such a daunting task.
One point I would raise based on the comments above is this. Everyone here seems to be taking as a matter of fact that “life” begins at conception. It is a view I share, so please don’t misunderstand me here. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. That said, I think the question is not that “life” begins there. I think science can tell us that something is “living” at that point, but is it “human life?” Dumbing it down a bit, does a “person” exist at that point? I think those questions are less settled than the comments would imply.
In fact, I think that is precisely the distinction Justice Blackmun was calling upon. Again, its not a view I share, but I did go to law school at one of those liberal bastions of higher thinking and that was the “modern day” 21st century science argument that I heard time and time again. Again, I share it not to agree with it, but only to raise the matter because I don’t believe it is as many of the comments would make it appear to be.
So what’s the difference and why does it matter? I am certain that Country Thinker would back me up when I tell you that every state writes their homicide statutes after a careful examination of the language to be included. This is often reflected most clearly in their “pregnant woman” statutes. Many states, like New York, make it a double-homicide to kill a pregnant woman; and many more do so without even the knowledge of the pregnancy or the intent to commit a “murder”. The irony – and the contradiction is that some of these states also possess the strongest pro-choice populations. That aside, the reason these statutes are so carefully drafted is because the term “human life” takes on a different meaning to some than “life.” Crazy, ridiculous, inconsistent? Probably all three, but the debate is still a debate and it wouldn’t be much of one without a touch of absurdity.
My other point would be to raise the question (for the cons in this crowd) of whether your position on where life begins is based in religious beliefs or something else? I ask that question because we conservatives purport to never stray from the Constitution and I do believe that glorious text through its First Amendment gives each and every one of us the Freedom of Religion (Establishment and Exercise). I think making the assumption that “life” begins at conception (from a moral perspective) assumes too much, and threatens to infringe upon the Document which we claim to defend against all “evils.”
Could a person from X faith believe that contraception is the moral equivalent to abortion? Should we ban that as well? Could a person from Y faith believe that life begins at viability? Could a person from Z faith believe life begins at the baby’s first breath? If we are considering Faith and morality, should we not also consider those beliefs? Should we not also respect the non-believer’s Rights as well?
I raise those scenarios only for the purpose of making the point that morality as a justification for opposition to abortion only leads one back to the Constitution. Where “life” begins is ultimately always going to be a moral issue and nothing else. Accordingly, it will never be a settled debate and the only recourse for those of us who happen to oppose the practice of abortion will be to remove this debate from the federal level and bring it to the state level where we can – as we were intended to – live according to our own social mores, beliefs, and values; where we can determine for ourselves that all life is worth protecting without any distinctions or inconsistencies.
Thank you for your indulgence, and again thank you for raising these questions.
Harrison, thank you for your very thoughtful response.
I want to focus on just one question, namely where I base my belief that life begins at conception. It’s not a moral/religious view per se, as my personal spirituality (a complex subject) is influenced by buddhist philosophy, and in a sense life is a continuum, and began long before conception!
I base my belief on biology. While there is no defintion of life, there are distinct characteristics that life shows, and they are all present at conception. The factor used by Blackmun – ability to live outside the womb (independent existence) – is absent from any list of the characteristics of life I’ve ever seen. Just based on ordinary observation it makes no sense.
Well, you did say you were going to write one of these posts, Ted. I am glad you did. Let me see if I can explain how I feel about abortion.
First of all, it should be a state issue. Each state should have the right to set it’s own regulations concerning abortion. As others have stated, it would make it a much easier battle.
Second, there is no way for me to get around the fact that abortion is the act of taking a life. I wouldn’t necessarily call it murder in every case, as I realize there may be times when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
Third, I have a real problem with the way our culture has came to define abortion as a right. That problem lies in the way abortion is used as a means of birth control. Women’s rights groups are quick to get up in arms when someone mentions banning abortion, usually saying what if it were their daughter or wife or sister, etc., who had been raped or the victim of incest. What they neglect to mention is the fact that the number of abortions performed for that reason is very negligible in this country. The vast majority of them are performed because the pregnancy was an inconvenience to the woman. No matter how I examine that, I can not conclude that is a good thing.
I think I could sum up my position on abortion like this. In some cases, I would consider it to be the murder of an innocent human being who has no control over their existence. In others, it may very well be a necessity, although those instances are very few. Maybe an all-out ban is not a good thing, neither is free and open access to abortion. That is what most abortion advocates are after, especially organizations like Planned Parenthood. They have no problem with taking the position that a minor child should be able to have an abortion, without the knowledge or consent of their parents. That is when I start digging in my heels.
LD – I want to agree with you that abortion is the taking of another’s life. That’s really part of my point, because I think efforts to define it otherwise are people trying to avoid the difficult questions.
I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so far for their thoughtful, insightful, and civil discussion of this very difficult and emotionally charged issue. I knew I was taking a risk by writing this post, but had confidence that the readers of Political Realities would be ready for an adult conversation on a hot-button issue. Everyone has exceeded my expectations, even though we have thoughts and opinions heading in a lot of different directions.
It is truly an honor to write for this blog, and to discuss important issues that face this nation with some of the most respectful and decent people I have ever had the privilege of having a political debate with. Thank you, everyone, you give me great hope for our future, at a time when my hope has been dwindling.
These folks around here have responded to your post exactly as I believed they would. We have a great bunch of readers.
I think I have told you privately, but I want to thank you in public for writing for me. You write a different kind of post than do I, and by doing so, you bring something entirely different to the discussion. You are doing a great job, Ted. Keep up the good work.
LD – I just wrote a response. I looked at it as Ted did, a clash between rights, but came to a different conclusion. Hopefully my argument is as reasonable as his.
http://the-classic-liberal.com/self-ownership-right-to-life/
My apologies for coming to this late, but I have been very ill.
Despite that, I have pondered this subject in great depth as a woman who unfortunately fell for the lie and had an abortion. It is a decision that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
As someone who has been on both sides of the issue – once having been pro-choice and now being pro-life – I am able to see both sides, if you will, even though I no longer agree with the pro-choice position.
When I think about the effort made by Hitler to annihilate a race because they were deemed less, I feel sick to my stomach. For me, Hitler was an evil, sick person who perpetrated unbelievable horror on a particular segment of the German population.
I think you would probably agree.
And yet, we do not seem to see abortion as the evil it is.
Many who discuss abortion never use the terminology that this ideology was birthed with. They use polite and often deliberately deceptive verbiage, such as ‘a woman’s right to choose,’ to placate themselves that this is okay.
Furthermore, they suggest that in some cases it is even appropriate, all the while knowing that those situations that are deemed appropriate, rarely if ever, happen.
How can we truly look at the abortion issue for what it is if we do not look at its inception/founding and the woman who created it?
I think more often than not we forget about the mindset that propelled this horrific plan on the American populace.
As a reminder, here are some quotes from Margaret Sanger – Founder of Planned Parenthood:
“The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order…”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.
The issue of abortion has never been about a woman’s right to choose. It has always been about eugenics and the elimination of those among us that some feel are beneath us, less than us.
It has always been about taking the life of those deemed ‘bad’, ‘unworthy’, by ‘giving’ a non-existent right to women to succumb to an ideology that would manipulate them into believing they have the right to kill the unborn child within them – a child, that should never have to fear harm from the mother who carries them.
Look at the words Sanger chose to use: KILL, EUGENICS, CLEANER RACE, DYSENGENIC (people with bad genes).
How is that we have come to a place where we are comfortable with advancing an ideology that mimics that of Hitler or other well-known evil men and do so without any remorse or conviction?
How is it that we can wrap our arms around abortion and embrace this ideology as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ when we know the ultimate, under-pinning of this whole movement was nothing more than eugenics?
Have we forgotten what Sanger’s ultimate goal was – outside of eugenics? Her ideology was not to allow women the right to do what was in their best interest. It was to eliminate their right to bear children at all.
Sanger proposed something called the American Baby Code, which basically stated, “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood”.
Again, this has never been about a woman’s right to do anything. This has always been about ‘cleaning the race’ and to think otherwise in this day in age is missing the fundamental point: abortion is nothing more than a plan of eugenics, as well as, a plan to restrict the right of mothers to produce children as they deem fit.
What grieves me more than anything is that many women are whole-heartedly buying into this fallacy that they are being imbued with a right when nothing can be further from the truth.
Ultimately, women are losing the ability to embrace one of the greatest rights we have: the right to bear children.
In addition, children are losing their ability to embrace their right to be born and fulfill the purpose they were created for.
An ideology that is birthed from as evil, debased, and vile a place as abortion was, can never be ‘cleansed’ in the future to be a practice that is right, good, or honorable.
Even more disheartening, it is most definitely not an ideology that should ever co-exist with being American.
My question is why, if Christians who are so dedicated to preserving life, consistently vote for Republicans, who completely supported the unjustified invasion of Iraq, which took the lives of tens of thousands (at least) innocent humans, including children, their mothers, and pregnant women. I abhor paying for war with my tax dollars, but am forced to do so. Why don’t Christians abhor it as well? Republicans also seek to defund programs that help poor children and their mothers, so they can continue to protect and increase the wealth of the richest among us. Why don’t Christians care what happens to unwanted children after they are born? It is the height of hypocracy to vote for Republicans and claim you are pro-life. Do you really think all those affluent, privileged men in congress care whether women terminate pregnancies? You might consider that they just enjoy the fact that they know how to get Christians to vote for them. Yet you will continue giving them your votes while they continue to defund education, health care and every other program that our children need. Please explain!
Rose, thank you for stopping by! You packed a lot into one paragraph, so let me try and break down my response point-by-point.
1) I’m libertarian, so I generally don’t vote Republican.
2) I agree with your position on war. The next question is why we have a Federal Reserve that debauches our currency to pay for these wars through the stealth inflation tax.
3) I agree that it is wrong to force someone to pay for either a war or an abortion they don’t support. You have eloquently made the case for smaller government. Taxation is theft, and it is immoral to coercively take from someone, and then use their money to pay for something they oppose.
4) Democrats are in bed with the wealthy and richest among us just as much as Republicans – a big reason why I vote Libertarian. For examples, see TARP, the stimulus bill, GM & Chrrysler bailouts, huge tax breaks and subsidies for companies who abide by Democrats’ policies, etc., etc. Although I suspect it isn’t the case, you sound like a tea partier! And as far as increasing the wealth of the richest, look no further than the Fed. Bernanke has said QE2 was designed to increase the “wealth effect,” even if the little guy gets squashed with food and energy inflation. The wealth effect, in this context, is juicing the stock market with easy money to make the rich richer so they will spend and invest.
5) Speaking of education specifically, we spend twice as much per pupil as any other nation, and get nothing for it. It’s time to end the War on Learning and shutter the Department of Education. It’s an $80 billion a year investment in making sure Americans lack the educational skills necessary to compete in a global economy.
6) My little boy is 4, and he does not “need” any government program, other than defense and police. Given that we are bankrupt as a nation, he needs far fewer programs, or his life will be very hard indeed.
7) All of this is pretty far afield from the limited scope of the post. Nonetheless, I have tried to respond as fairly as I can, and hopefully I have given one libertarian’s view of your response. Being thus, may I ask you the favor of answering the central topic of this piece: Did I frame the abortion debate properly? If not, how would you frame it?
I am a moderate on this issue. I personally would not choose to take a life but I will not support a federal law banning abortion. I do have a different perspective to share from the experience of losing a baby…As a society we directly contradict ourselves in terms of believing that personhood and life begins at conception in regards to abortion verses how we treat and view early to mid miscarriages. A miscarriage doesn’t generate the same amount of symphony as losing a baby at birth and beyond. Regardless if you are pro-life, pro-choice, moderate, catholic, or christan, early to mid miscarriages in pregnancy is not only viewed differently as a loss by people, the religious sect doesn’t even treat the deceased baby as the same as a born baby or child as a standard. At catholic hospitals remains are not saved unless your baby weighs a certain amount and the overwhelming majority of parish’s do not have services for grieving parents. How can this be if life begins at conception? The remains of your baby are classified as tissue and are disposed of as medical refuse. This is a standard practice at all hospitals. How can we hold those who view personhood at a latter stage of pregnancy in contempt of not acknowledging a full human being at conception when we as a society do not behave as if that is true? We don’t treat the deceased the same when a mother loses a baby in early pregnancy? Does society have a double standard?
Lynn, I can sympathize (not empathize) with your situation. Frankly, I had no idea that was the position of Catholic or other hospitals. If so, I think you are absolutely correct in your observation of an inherent incosistency of position. Thank you for pointing that out – it was a “light bulb” moment for me.
Perhap the reason it didn’t occur to me (in spite of having been in that position, as a spouse, of course), is because of my general lack of concern for physical remains. I personally could care less what becomes of me when I’m gone.
That said, I would probably think differently if it were my son. Perhaps the fact that I held him in my arms explains why. I’m not saying that is rational or consistent. I’m just trying to work thorugh this challengin and interesting issue you’ve presented.