Tuesday, April 18, 2006

For the Record: Abortion
In some of my very rare (and undoubtedly quite valuable) public statements, I made note of the sometimes ridiculous labels issued from both sides of the abortion debate. The standards, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, seem to be the most agreeable. I've noticed that the mainstream media often use pro-choice in conjunction with anti-abortion, but this is to be expected from that hostile environment. Yes, pro-lifers are indeed anti-abortion, but the negative context "anti" holds does well to subtly advance their cause. I have also seen pro-choicers (notably NARAL and NOW) use the term "anti-choice" to describe the pro-life movement. Seriously folks, you're doing nothing to advance your cause by being so petty and immature. To make my point in some of my written articles, I turned the tables and used the term "pro-death" to describe the pro-choicers. To believe that the other side's goal is to kill as many babies as possible is of course, ridiculous on its face. While I may believe this is the result of what they are striving for certainly it is not their goal, just as my goal is not to take "choice" away from women.

Regardless, context is not the main point of this post, though it has taken most of the space. If you support keeping the mandate for legal abortion, then you should stand up and represent. Statements like those made by Senators Kerry and Kennedy in opposition of abortion, but in favor of keeping it legal in almost all circumstances are what really bother me. The question that must be posed: Why, if you are personally opposed to abortion do you favor keeping it legal? Are you merely opposed because you dislike women, but feel they should be allowed to have this right? Is it because you truly feel, like pro-lifers, that abortion is the killing of a living human being? If this is the case, how can you POSSIBLY support keeping the practice legal? This position is absolutely impossible to justify or defend unless you publicly hate women or support murder. C'mon guys, if you support abortion, then support it with gusto! Just don't claim the labels of your respective churches which are diametrically opposed to the procedure, yet politically beneficial to be a member of. This means you too, Harry Reid.

Update 04/20/06:

Liberals defending free speech.

Comments on "For the Record: Abortion"


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (4:06 PM) : 

Here's my $.02.

I have no problem with 1st trimester abortions. I don't believe life begins with conception. For me and my beliefs, a human being becomes so somewhere in the 2nd trimester. Third trimester abortions are extremely offensive to me on a very visceral level.

Given that context above, I personally would urge my partner not to abort our child under any circumstance. But, that is a personal choice: my personal choice. So therefore I think it should be legal (though not with the laughable legal underpinnings of Roe v. Wade). Oh and not third trimesters, though. I'd put the clamp down on that if I could.

Not looking for an argument here - you could literally take any of my statements above and turn it into a 200 page debate. You asked a question and I answered it! I can understand Kerry's position on this issue, and I don't say *that* very often at all, as you know.


Anonymous Theo said ... (6:46 PM) : 

It's pretty simple, Chucky. "Pro-choice" means just that. Not imposing your set of choices on someone, but allowing them to make them for themselves. That's what "choice" means - and if the state suddenly decided they could control YOUR personal autonomy, you'd see the value of choice pretty quick.


Blogger Chucko said ... (8:57 AM) : 

You understand Kerry's position? I'd recommend immediately applying to his campaign as a "position translator." He could use a guy like you to help get the nuance across. My big problem with Kerry isn't his position on abortion, it's his hypocrisy in claiming to be Catholic, yet supporting abortion from pre-conception until 1 month out of the womb. You can't be these two things, just like you can't mix oil and water. If you personally believe a baby doesn't become "human" until the 2nd trimester, then hey, that's your prerogative. Just don't come back and say "I oppose abortion in the second and third trimesters, but I support its legality in such circumstances." Your position is clearly defined and not hypocritical.


Blogger Chucko said ... (9:04 AM) : 

Yep, I understand the pro-choice position Theo... I merely wish that their side had as much respect for pro-lifers as we do for them.


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (2:33 PM) : 

I didn't even see your link in your original posting that brings Catholicism into the debate. Your question should be:
"Why, if you are Catholic and personally opposed to abortion do you favor keeping it legal?"

And in that case, the "personally opposed" is completely irrelevant. My previous statement still stands in that I can oppose something personally and still desire the opposite to be legal, as I am not bound by any religious affiliations. As you mentioned, there's no hypocrisy here and I could give you many examples where this is the case.

For the Catholic thing - yep. You're right. I agree that you can't be Catholic and pro-choice. But Kerry is a New England Catholic, which I know by your definition [which is the Church's definition] is not Catholic at all. By these standards, neither is anyone in my family...or virtually any of the Catholics I knew in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. I wish someone would tell them this so that they'd stop giving so much money and service to the church. I'd go so far as to bet you that at least half of the Catholics in New England support abortion. I'd bet 2/3 support *either* the death penalty or abortion. What should the church do with these rogues?

Not trying to ruffle your feathers here, big guy. These are just legitimate questions I have.


Anonymous Theo said ... (6:42 PM) : 

What exactly about how the way the right protests at abortion clinics is in any way "respectful"?
Excuse me...my irony detector just exploded.


Blogger Chucko said ... (8:04 PM) : 

"What should the church do with these rogues?"

The Church has stated her position clearly, and those that have violated her laws have excommunicated themselves automatically. Not my fault if they keep throwing their money at the Church, I just want them to quit claiming they're members when they are not. Gotta run for now, will elaborate more later if my attention span keeps up.


Anonymous Mom said ... (8:10 AM) : 

When I hear anyone claim that a baby is not human until the 2nd trimester (when most abortions are performed), I start to twitch...

Do dogs give birth to kittens? Do elephants give birth to mice?

Sex Ed. 101:
The second that little swimmer meets up with that egg, guess what folks, it's gonna be a human baby. Not a puppy, not a carrot...a baby. A precious, developing human, baby who had no input on the decisions that led to his or her creation.

There is a reason our Founding Fathers wrote that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," (in that order). Because without the first, fundamental right to life, the rest are unattainable.

If you don't believe that abortion is wrong on a moral level, it's [at least] blatantly unconstitutional.


post a comment

Go to the source!