Since we are in the political season I want to address the hot button topic of abortion. Many will vote based on a candidates position on abortion. I hold that those that support the pro choice position do not truly hold to that position if all the ramifications were to come with it.
The Susan B. Anthony Society is a slander to her good name since she condemned abortion whiles being the number one proponent of women's rights in the USA, yet has a society named after her that promotes abortion rights.
Next would be Margaret Sanger who is credited with the founding of "Planned Parenthood" by "Planned Parenthood". This is the largest abortion mill origination in the country. While they are founded on reducing the population of the "unfit" (read non-white and undesirables) by other means they do not even hold true to the origins Sanger herself. Sanger may well have founded "Planned Parenthood" based on racism and advocated for birth control for the "unfit" so as to get rid of the non-whites she did not indorse abortion, just the opposite. To quote her from her autobiography “To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”
Find out what's happening in Restonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Let us move past the history of the USSR and Nazi Germany in the roles they played in abortion rights and let use move up to the present day of abortion. If abortion is chosen because the child is a girl and undesirable then that would be seen as unacceptable to those in the pro-choice camp. This practice of sex-selection, as it is called, is prevalent in many countries including the UK. This type of selective abortion is chosen for religious and economic reasons but is roundly criticized and in some places it is illegal. Even Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright went to India to protest the practice and admits that it takes place right here in America. If you are against this practice you truly are not pro-choice. The Democrats recently did defeat a bill that would have made this practice illegal so most elected Liberals are pro-choice consistent.
Most, but not all, pro-choicers believe that abortion is a right and that doctors do not have the right to not perform abortion. The good news is that there are shortages of doctors that will perform abortions. This is because no doctor of quality wants to be involved. This has also led to efforts to force abortion training on the up and coming new doctors whether they want it or not. It seems the right to choice stops at the end of the nose of the ones promoting abortion. All others must comply to include others paying for it. It seems amazing that choice is a one way street and that someone else's morals, ethics and religious convictions should be irrelevant when an abortion is demanded.
Find out what's happening in Restonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
A recent situation in the news had been the murder trial of Dr. Gosnell being the largest mass murder in American history through his 40 year abortion practice. This has put a bit of a stigma on abortion and those that perform them. While a concerted effort has been made to keep this doctor and his murder trial out of the mainstream news it is known about and a film is being efforted on this heinous individual.
The Supreme Court ruled on abortion back in the 1970's based on a nonexistent position in the Constitution which was based on a "Living Constitution" that was to follow what the people really wanted or some such convoluted reasoning. In reality it was based on a supposed right to privacy that Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, said was not found in the Constitution but rather extrapolated from other rulings. Would it not be nice if the Courts just ruled based on what the Constitution actually said and applied that standard. We have a host of issues and problems that have stemmed from liberal court's ruling with abysmal logic and law.
The one argument against abortion that is not able to be refuted by the Left is if an abortion right is the right of the women, and the women only, because it is her body then there is no rational reason why the father should be held legally responsible for child support. This would take place in the event of a choice not to abort the pregnancy. I do in fact support child support from the father because it is his responsibility. But the legal argument that the father has no say so in the matter logically follows that he has no legal obligation either. Both parties are responsible at the time of conception. But the legality of it is that the woman takes complete control of all decisions from that moment forward. Why then does the father have any legal responsibilities if he has no legal recourse if the woman decides to abort or not to abort the pregnancy? If the woman chooses to not abort and the father chooses to abort he has no standing in the decision. The mother should have no standing to hold him responsible in the eyes of the law. In fact a husband wanting a vasectomy must get the wife's consent in most reputable clinics but the wife does not need the husband's consent to have an abortion in any clinic.
If the law allowed the guys to get away with not paying child support I would imagine that abortion would be looked at a lot differently.
Lastly, if I am right and abortion is killing a child there is a dead child as a result. If abortions were illegal and I am wrong about my position there is a live child as a result. Which would you rather have as the result of someone being wrong?
