Black Shards Press – Electronic Gumbo is Our Specialty

Abortion, the Right to Kill

23.01.2007 (5:40 pm) – Filed under: Society ::

It’s a Liberal Issue

Democrats embrace abortion as a political issue because it’s one that can bring in a high percentage of votes in a particular demographic: the liberal female vote. For Dems it’s a no-brainer – abortion may be the only issue that they have the popular vote on their side. They milk it for all it’s worth, even to the point of supporting so-called “partial birth” abortions in which a viable baby is killed and often dismembered in situ. Anything to get a vote. Or so it seems.

(Fans of this procedure and of “a woman’s right to choose” may well find my choice of language offensive. I hope so; otherwise I’ve failed to communicate. Happily the Bush administration has placed restrictions on this singularly gruesome procedure. The Supreme Court recently held hearings on the subject; a decision is expected this year.)

Many people, myself included, marvel at the logical contortions that liberal thinkers put themselves through to justify their positions on various issues. Nowhere is this more apparent that in regards to the abortion issue. Liberals are against the war in Iraq because it risks the lives of American soldiers. Liberals are against capital punishment because murderers are deprived of their lives and because they might feel several minutes of pain in the process. Yet liberals are nearly 100% gung-ho for abortion rights.

How can this be?

The Situational Arguments

Those in favor of abortion often use the argument that it is necessary to preserve women’s health. This is undoubtedly true in some cases. However, the actual numbers show that this is an argument of marginal validity – only 6% of abortions are performed for health reasons.

Rape and incest is another hot-button argument with the abortionist crowd; yet, only one percent of all abortions are a result of sex crimes.

This leaves us with the overwhelming majority of abortions – 93% – that, to use blunt language again, are performed for reasons of convenience. Understandably those who feel strongly about abortion rights will and do not like this phrasing. But there’s no use in obfuscating the truth, is there?

The “My Body” Argument

Another argument that is often put into play is that of “a woman’s right to choose”. According to the script set forth by female rights advocates, political correctness demands that males play a limited role in the reproductive process – it is the woman who decides when and if to carry a child and, more importantly, it is solely at her discretion whether or not to terminate the child’s life in the womb before birth.

The legally astute – of whom I am not one – will notice a significant gray area in this argument. Leaving aside the largest matter of dubious ethics, the termination of the child (or fetus, for those in denial who insist on splitting definitional hairs), for the moment, consider the male-female relationship and the rights and responsibilities of both parents. Like it or not, it still takes two to tango and to make a baby.

The feminist position is that, because the woman carries the child and makes the most directly significant contributions to the nurturing of the young life during the incubation process, the woman is entitled to make decisions on behalf of the child without input from the male. Hence the terms “a woman’s right to choose” and “my body, my choice.”

Ethically, however, there is no such thing as a woman’s right to choose. Despite playing a different role, the male’s rights to the child are fully as valid as the female’s. Both contributed to the creation of the life and, presumedly, both will contribute to the continuing investment in it.

“But the carrying! The labor! The pain!” The feminists cry in their strident, outraged voices. “It’s my body!”

Yes, it’s true, women bear children. But their demands for total control over the process have no logical basis to rest on. The female does the hard work for the first 9 months of the child’s life. But thereafter the male’s contribution generally becomes primary from the providing and protecting standpoints while the woman handles the secondary roles of nurturing and care-giving. As imperative and important as the woman’s role in creating life is, there is simply no basis for a woman to argue that a male’s right to have his child born should be dismissed because she was inconvenienced for +-270 days.

Feminists rally around the rare case of a woman who wants to abort their child and a man who disagrees. “It’s her body! Why shouldn’t she have the final say?” They shout.

It is an interesting question but, happily, it’s not a complex one. To find an answer, simply reverse the genders and re-analyze the situation. In the more traditional case of a man who is not interested in raising his issue, he is legally obligated to provide child support for said offspring. Therefore, should a man refuse a woman’s demand for an abortion, he should be obligated to compensate her for any financial losses and costs incurred during the pregnancy and care for the child after its birth.

In short, fair treatment under the law requires that both voices be heard with equal volume and clarity when it comes to making decisions about a child’s life. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.

The Numbers

Consider the post entitled “The Body Count” by The Texas Rainmaker, then look back at the abortion statistics referred to previously. The most potent, distilled fact that this data communicates is that every year more babies, 1.37 million, are “terminated” in the U.S.A. than in all of our foreign wars combined.

Think about the aftermath of WW II and the hundreds of thousands of men who were lost and the millions more that were maimed. Think about the heartache of the greatest generation as, in the prime of their lives, they had to struggle to put the horrors of war behind them, rebuild a country, and then face the Soviets down in the Cold War.

Now consider that American women kill off 1,274,100 babies – 1.37 million * the 93% of abortions not related to rape, incest, or health matters – each and every year, most out of either convenience or laziness.

What sense is there in that?

What must the men and women who fought and gave their all to preserve this country think of the new generation? I shudder to think.

More Numbers

The Liberal Left is 80+% up in arms over the war in Iraq. Why? Their stated reason is that it puts the lives of American troops at risk. This is a valid concern – I am keenly aware of their risks myself – but it does not make sense coming from their mouths.

Approximately 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq. Approximately 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as well, mostly civilians and mostly in internal fighting. This is a tragedy that I wish President Bush had not foisted on us. However, compare these numbers for 4 years of heavy fighting with the abortion stats discussed above.

Why does the Liberal Left carp endlessly about the risks well-trained, heavily-armed American soldiers willingly take on while their social policies kill over a million infants in the womb (or half-born, in the case of their pet procedure, the partial-birth abortion)?

Why do they pull out all of the stops to stymie states that have decided to utilize the death penalty to punish murderers and other capital offenders while just as assiduously promoting and encouraging aborting the one group of people who have no voice?

What logic is there in their position?

I have no answer for it other than party politics. This rather macabre plank in their agenda is there for one reason: the Republicans won’t challenge them for it and the result is a guaranteed block of Liberal Left voters.

It’s a disgusting realization to come to, that the Liberal Left will sell not only their own souls but those of the women who fall victim to their policies simply to gain political advantage. For them I have nothing but disdain.

Conclusion

It should be obvious by now that my view is firmly against the casual, widespread use of the abortion procedure as a means of birth control.

Neither do I accept the “it’s a woman’s choice” argument for two main reasons:

  1. In America, women have free choice as to whether they have sex or not (yes, yes, save for cases of rape and incest). That’s your choice, ladies. Once you’ve made it, you should, at a bare minimum, have the courage to live with the consequences. 9 months is not a lifetime and there is an easy solution to your problem. It’s spelled A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N.
  2. When there’s a dispute between parents about the fate of the unborn, either parent should have the right to say “Yes!” to life. Even a man. Even if the woman would rather kill her baby.

All of that said, I support Roe v. Wade on principle. Why? Because I live in America and personal freedom, within the broadest possible constraints, is our birthright. Personal responsibility is, or was, the watchword of this nation. It is not up to me, the government, or anyone else to make decisions for these women, misguided as they might be.

I would love to believe that these words mean something and that they can convince every reader of this post to believe as I do and that they should vote and act accordingly.

But I will not attempt to force my views of morality down the throats of unbelievers.
In return they should have the same respect for me. But I don’t expect it.

Leave a Comment
(All comments are moderated before they appear on the site.)