Here’s my issue with the Pro-Lifers self righteous rampages: They make it out that the greater issue is the death of morality in America – as if *their* beliefs are law, and that morality can never be and is never a subjective thing, and that making the decision to take a life is, inarguably, wrong – no exceptions, no exclusion. Yet, self-defense is still viable. And soldiers, well, they’re not murderers at all. And Capital punishment is still on the books. And euthanasia is humane in necessity. They want to argue that Pro-Choicers and legislation and Politics are flippant and hypocritical in how they pick-and-choose when a life is a life or a baby is a baby or a fetus or a fetus – but what is the difference with picking choosing when murder is murder? There is none. Whatever works for your argument, right?
right.
You are entitled to whatever you want to believe – you do not have to advocate abortions, you can be pro-life to your little heart’s content….but when you try to forcefully impose your beliefs, not only onto others (which is bad enough) but try to force them into law? No. I’m sorry, you don’t get to *take away* the rights from one to give to another – that is not how that works.
And before you berrate me with your hateslander of “but you’re taking away the rights from the BABY!” NO – no. I’m not, because last time I checked, a person is guaranteed rights upon *birth*. Lets quote the constitution, shall we? How about the line most notably thrown around side-to-side in this political debate.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
All persons born or naturalized. Well, that whole in-utero thing kind complicates that, doesn’t it? So no, technically, they are guaranteed nothing, as they are currently *not* born and *not* naturalized.
Secondly, for those who like to scream that they *are* born due to partial-birth procedures, and others who may want to claim the citizenship through parentship clause, then I would like to point out that they would still be minors – and minors are not guaranteed full legal rights or recognition, and that those rights are defaulted to their parents. Now, that is a petty cold argument, I’ll give you that, but it is still valid – especially when you take into account rights and responsibilities via proxy – most notably medical proxy, where a parent can choose to remove life support of their child.
As fa as the morality of America, I would like to remind everyone – as ignored and overlooked as it is – there is a such thing a separation of church and state. Morality is often an issue of faith, and personal beliefs. Something the Government is not allowed to bias and elevate one over another, and thusly advocating a “state faith” or belief. This would also assume that the so called death of morality would mean that there, at some point, was a peak of morality, meaning this downturn would be relatively recent – and this continuation in political correctness to allow abotions the obvious biproduct of such immorality must, therefore, also be relatively new.
Strangely, I have in my posession a lovely little thing calle the Trotula. It is a manuscript aptly described as The Medieval Compendium of Women’s Medicine. So impressive it is that it is taught in Women’s Studies courses in colleges all over the wold – as well as in historic studies, and even literary studies – just as I have referrenced it endless times for research for my writing.
In this medieval compendium, it details on what to do if one does not wish to conceive, and the matters in which would cause an evacuation of the womb, and also the removal of a dead fetus.This *medieval* text describes birth control, enduced miscarriage, and abortion. In fact, there are historic records of abortions noted through out ancient history as far back as the 8th century, and the Greeks were so salaciously pro-choice (and pro-sex) that Plato even detailed the abortion duties of midwives, and they harvested a strain of Saffron into extinction for its contraceptive properties, and even used as an ancient Plan-B pill!
But yes, this must be an issue of Ameicans lack of morality. Not simply an instinctive human right that has been recognized, and employed since humans realized hey! sex is good
Another problem with the forced pro-life lobbying is the concensus of when *life* actually begins, or what constitues life. Does it begin upong conception? Is it the physical act of living, breathing, viability outside the womb? Conciousness and self awareness, the presence of a soul? How would one grade a soul – and if a soul is transcendant, then how would you measure thei presence, beginning or ending? These questions are being argued by psychological, scientific and secular authorities alike. You cannot enforce legislation on something that cannot even be conclusively decided on its existance.
The Issue with defunding Planned Parenthood is the fact there is no basis under the FQHC to defund it, and in order to ethically do so, you would have to rewrite special ammendments within the qualifications or statutes that stipulate circumstance for defunding or disqualifying sites within the greater program – which cuold potentially lead to hundreds of sites being closed under new regulation, leaving the community as a whole hurting – and not just for women.
What has Planned Parenthood done that is so offensive (on a political standing)? If you have a problem with the use of fetal tissue for medical research and advancement – then you should also be against transplants and organ donors. They are no different. There’s really no other way to argue that point because they, literally, are the same thing, the only difference is the context of a “fetus” making people uncomfortable – that’s it. If the tissue, organs or stem cells from a fetus can save anothers life, pave the way for medical advancements in life changing, dibilitating or terminal illnesses, please explain to me the immorality in that? Its the cycle of life, and if you are more spiritual or practical, its reassuring these children did not die in vain. God makes everything happen for a reason, right? Then perhaps you need to consider the fact hat maybe their “reason” for existing – was to be able to help someone else live. God works in mysterious ways, afterall. And he’s big on sacrifice, too, if you remember accurately. But you are stifling the chance for that little body to do good in the world, to reach beyond themselves and change another life. You are telling terminall ill people all over the world who are waiting for new medicines, and hope and a cure that you’re own self righteousness and pride means more than their well being.
This is one situation, where regardless of what side you are one – there is the potential to spread life out of death; to breed hope out of the hopeless – breed good from the bad.
And you are telling people that is wrong?