Abortion Religion & Politics
January 25, 2010 at 10:32 pm 56 comments
Keiron Jackman
Political Columnist
WordPress
This past Friday marked the 37th birthday of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe vs. Wade, yet for much of the last 35 years a candidate’s stance on the big “A” has been the deciding factor for voters that consider themselves to be religious, choice advocates, or ethically mindful. Since the ruling, abortion has emerged to become a visceral political wedge and both parties have capitalized on its sentiments; Republicans identifying more on the side of life and Democrats on the side of choice. However if voters were to examine the legal implications of their respective principles or the foundation from which their ideologies on abortion emanates, they would be surprised to know that the current law is the best fit for all sides, and more so consistent with the Constitution.
Current law allows a pregnant woman to choose within a certain time period, with few exceptions, whether the pregnancy will continue or terminate. Furthermore, in choosing to terminate a pregnancy the federal government is exempt from providing monetary assistance in carrying out that decision – a provision of the Hyde Amendment, which essentially acknowledges the government’s obligation to uphold life, especially innocent life that has not otherwise committed an offense that would justify the state terminating that life.
Thus the law gives the woman the authority, as the law gives an enforcement officer or a judge the authority to execute judgment on life within their respective jurisdictions, to make a decision on life without the transgression of murder. For example, a judge or executioner is not a murderer because he or she renders the death penalty to a convicted felon; neither is a law enforcement officer a murderer because he or she kills a perpetrator in the act of committing a fatal crime. Granted that these life-ending decisions are performed in accordance to the law, there is no fault or guilt that is attributed to the individuals with which that authority lies.
Case and point, examine the situation in which an individual is on life support and there is no prior arrangement or will as to the decision on whether to artificially sustain life or not to resuscitate. In the absence of such a directive the decision lies with the next of kin or the person with the most vested interests. For a married couple, it is the spouse; for a single parent, it is the child(ren) or parent(s) of that parent; for an unmarried parentless individual, it is the sibling; for the daughter or son, it is the parent(s) etc. etc. Therefore the next of kin or the person wherein vested interest lies is charged with the authority to make the decision on life.
There are countless instances where life decisions are made by families that are placed in this unfortunate circumstance. And when those decisions are made, no matter the ideology, the individuals rending the decision are not labeled as murderers, but rather executing a painful, even compassionate fate on their loved ones. The only role government plays concerning these life decisions is to ensure that the law is being upheld.
Pro-lifers argue that the rights of an individual and a fetus should be inseparable, and thus a fetus should be treated no differently than a born individual with constitutional and unalienable rights; this argument is based on an ideology that is rooted in scientific and religious principles which follow that life begins at conception. However, the legal implication of life beginning at conception would imply that a fetus is characterized as an individual. Furthermore following the legal logic of treating a fetus as an individual, would characterize that fetus as an individual that cannot speak on their own behalf, whose life is being “artificially” sustained, since that life cannot sustain itself with the most basic bodily functions such as breathing.
Thus, given that the fetus would legally fall into the category of a person on life support, the decision on sustaining or discontinuing life would lie with the individual with that authority to make the decision on life – the mother. And in executing her judgment she or the parents of that child-fetus should be given the same deference as any individual charged with making a life decision.
One can argue about whether the decision is righteous, but to allow these decisions to be influenced by outside forces or the government will impact the sovereignty of all life decisions concerning loved ones. This is because the government cannot discriminate against one particular person or class and it must provide equal protection.
Therefore, pro-lifers should rely on their faith and the judgment that comes from God, concerning the intent of the person exercising this authority because according to those of faith, God is the only entity that can know the heart. Man can make a reasoned guess, but will never be sure of the absolute truth. But what should comfort voters of faith should be the question of who is in control, is it God or man? Who has the power to change hearts? And can man stop the purpose of God?
If pro-lifers that are of faith think about these questions, while doing their best to reduce unwanted pregnancies by providing alternatives to abortions and influencing the public policies and factors that impact families, finances, and healthy practices they will accomplish more than the fight for or against the overturning of Supreme Court’s decision.
Abortion should not be an issue itself. Rather the policies that affect its proliferation should be addressed. Americans should seek compromise and respect each other, and not allow profound issues such as abortion to divide the nation.
If you enjoyed the read or would like to hear more of my perspectives on politics and government, please subscribe or sign up for the email notifications on the home page, and never have to check to see when a new story comes out. Or please visit at least 3 times a week to check for new stories. Thank you for your readership.
Entry filed under: Politics. Tags: .
1.
Joe Cheng | January 25, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Keiron, I enjoyed your thoughtful and well-written post and agree with much (but not all) of what you’ve written here.
Decisions about removing a person from life support generally happen when you’re talking about a terminal illness, vegetative state, etc. where the person has little hope for recovery. Would it be just as morally acceptable if the law allowed families to pull the plug on patients who are temporarily incapacitated but fully expected to recover–AND millions of families chose to do exactly this every year?
BTW there are many pro-lifers of faith that are working hard to provide alternatives to abortion, with compassion and sensitivity toward the women who have to make these unenviable decisions. Those who lobby against abortion directly are simply the loudest.
2.
Wendy | January 26, 2010 at 5:20 am
Mr. Jackman, you are right. The lines which defined where Democrats and Republicans fall on this issue are not so clearly defined anymore. Take the case of newly elected, Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Scott Brown who is pro-choice.
3.
Ron | April 20, 2010 at 5:14 am
Actually, Scott Brown is the newly-elected Senator from Massachusetts.
4.
Rebecca Curtis | January 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Ending life-support on a terminally ill loved one, either at the end of life or in a state of no hope for recovery is not even similar to a fetus in the womb. A fetus in the womb is in a natural, temporary state and location that is the biological orgin of every human being ever conceived. The fetus in the womb is in the place that is required for it to be by the very nature of being a human. There is nothing “artificial” about the circumstances in the womb. A fetus in the womb is in the most natural place in the world, a place designed to nourish, grow and protect it during gestation. There is no way that pregnancy and “ife support” are even close to the same thing.
5.
Sean Nolan | January 26, 2010 at 10:56 pm
There is a crucial distinction with respect to the question of life-support, whether that of a seriously (or terminally) ill patient, and that of the unborn child. It lies in the nature of the removal of life-support. Offering life-support to a seriously or terminally ill patient constitutes a specific intervention in the life of that person in order to preserve the life. Removal of such life-support is thus the removal of an intervention into the physical processes of their body.
However, in abortion, the abortion, and not the life-support, constitutes the specific intervention in the life of the individual. Not to abort is to allow the natural processes of the person to develop. Furthermore, in abortion the intervention is such that it is intended specifically to kill the individual (the unborn child). In a seriously or terminally ill patient, the specific intervention is not intended to kill the patient, but has the unfortunate side-effect (due to a cause most likely not from one of those actually ‘pulling the plug’, but a naturally occurring disease or problem), of almost always ending the patient’s life.
A fundamental difficulty in your discussion, Mr. Jackman, is the conflation and failure to adequately distinguish between the end and the means. The end, granted, is the same (the termination of life). But the means are crucially different. Even the law clearly makes such distinctions. For example, and end could be obtaining a loaf of bread. But, if it was obtained by theft, that is illegal; if it was obtained by purchase from legally acquired legal tender, then the obtaining of the bread is legal.
6.
keiron Jackman | January 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Mr. Nolan I understand what you are saying and it is not the norm for authors to respond to readers because I do want readers to feel free to express themselves — but I am somewhat different, I believe we all can learn through discussion and I take no offense. But to your point concerning a born and unborn person, the government cannot discriminate by age on this issue, can government say you are old so the rules are different for you concerning rights? What right does a born person have that is on life-support that an unborn person does not have? Now concerning the natural processes, isn’t healing a natural process — so aren’t people who wake up out of comas or regain brain function, isn’t that through the natural process of healing. So one cannot use the argument that a baby is developing, because actually there is development in the human body even to the age of 50. So looking with unbiased eyes (law) how can you say a fetus developing is different from a 13, 21, 44 yr old developing. Remember your basis is that a fetus is an individual therefore why does this individual (fetus) get more rights, because not allowing the the same options that are available to others (born ppl) in the same state (life support/unable to function) would be discrimination. The only way u can legally do what you would wish would be to place fetuses in a protected class, but are we willing to have trails about abortions/murder, or are we capable of judging who has a righteous reason for ending a baby’s life? And how would we stop this from leaking into cases with born ppl?
7.
Sean Nolan | March 15, 2010 at 1:34 am
Mr. Jackman,
I appreciate your openness to engaging in dialogue to authentically seek after the good. I offer my comments in this manner.
If you wish to seek a legal analog between those who are terminally ill, and those who are still in the womb, then perhaps we can actually start there: consider, who are those persons who are terminally ill whose lives it even is a consideration to end their life? It is those who, if their bodies were to take their natural course, they would die, and we are, by means of specific and medical interventions, attempting to preserve their life. Should these means be excessively burdensome, then such interventions can be withdrawn. In the case of the unborn person, however, such logic does not lead to the conclusion that abortion is acceptable should the parents make that decision. Rather, should the life of the individual in the womb no longer be able to survive by means of the natural processes appropriate to it, then certain medical interventions become an acceptable recourse in an attempt to save this life. However, if the life cannot be saved, or the medical interventions become excessively burdensome, then those interventions can be ethically removed and the life of the individual will end. In this way, the same legal consideration stands and is applied, without bias, in both cases.
It will be objected that in the case of an abortion, the mother is already using her own means (her body, and in particular her uterus) to preserve the life of the child, and that these means be withdrawn by the mother (and father, if you wish), and that this, rather than my example above, constitutes the more accurate description of the situation. In this way, and not in the way above, removing the assistance to the unborn child becomes less problematic because it is thought of as the removal of assistance that may or may not be offered to the child. However, I think that this way of considering the situation does not correctly consider the various modes of so-called ‘assistance’ that obtain in the analogy. First, in the case of those who are terminally ill, we intentionally medically intervene into the natural processes of the body (which have been damaged due generally to some disease and in the case of the elderly also due to the effects of aging) to attempt to restore normal functioning. Second, in the case of the unborn child, this is not really a manner of “assistance” because the child exists within its proper environment, and no medical intervention is necessary (in general) for the natural processes of the person to continue to develop as they ought. Thus, we cannot simply equate the role of the woman’s body in the formation of new life as being merely assistance that can be ended. Rather, it should better be thought of as a natural process operating within the life of the family (mother and father, as a natural consequence of the marital relations, which can be seen obviously from the actual marital act itself), and within the life of society, as that way in which new life (which is the most precious thing in any society) is brought into the world.
Thank you again for your comments, Mr. Jackman.
Sean Nolan
8.
keiron Jackman | March 15, 2010 at 4:36 am
Mr. Nolan,
I appreciate your thoughts and your analysis of this debate, I enjoy when citizens can have substantive and genuine dialogue on social topics. First I understand you completely; your logic and point of view. However, I believe that when it comes to the law, it must be equally applied, and thus non-discriminatory. Understanding that general principle, rather on the basis of that principle (which may not always be true but in most cases true) the law cannot make distinctions between these “medical conditions” within the framework of your argument or in context to the rights of individuals who cannot speak for themselves [whether by death, medical condition, fetus, etc.,] and the rights of those who hold power over these individuals that cannot speak for themselves.
Though your analysis correctly distinguishes the difference between the unborn and a terminally ill person, please remember my analysis does not require or limit the situation to a terminally ill person; it can be a person who has slipped into a coma who is otherwise healthy, or could be a person who has suffered brain damage in a car accident, who would live if sustained — basically it can be any condition that renders a person indefinitely unconscious and or unresponsive to stimuli, but alive.
So concerning the law when dealing with this situation, i believe the law covers all such cases. Remember you cannot place a fetus in a special category, they are individuals like you and I and are entitled to the same rights we have, if we were to somehow re-enter or experience a condition that renders us a “fetus” or “fetus-like” condition, we would be in the same boat as any other fetus in America, by the whim of a loved one our lives could end. So we must remember the law has to be consistent. It’s like speech we cannot limit the speech we hate.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in equal rights. I believe a person must first be denied a right in order to claim a right. I believe this is the same argument with homosexuality. What right does a straight person have a homosexual cannot enjoy. To claim homosexual rights would suggest there are rights given to others and denied to others solely because they are homosexual. For example marriage. A homosexual can marry. –some may say no they can’t, paul cannot marry steve.. Well neither can a straight person, marry a person of the same sex. Therefore it is not denying a right. With loving vs virginia supreme court case — other men could marry women, but certain men could not marry women. And they were denied the right to marry solely because of race. A declared homosexual can still marry just like everyone else….. I may have gone off a bit. but I was demonstrating my point with equal protections, applications, and rights from a different perspective I thought you would be able to understand more clearly.
Thank you again, for your comments… demand more from your representatives.
9.
K. Sullivan | January 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
OMGosh. How can you compare the dying to ones who are not dying? All of us die if you remove our food and water. . . You don’t even remove food and water from chronically ill who have a reasonable expectation of living. And while we expect families to have a say in whether or not life support is removed, we do not allow any one party to put his or her own needs above the patient, not heirs, not hospitals.
10.
Bea Rocker | January 26, 2010 at 5:56 pm
1. The Hyde amendment has to be implemented each year or a designated term. 2. My religion is against abortion, period. It is a live human being in the most natural place in the world. Person is a human made up word and many want to deny those who are disabled or very sick as persons. 3. These are innocent human beings, not dying. If they are dying, no law will stop a woman from having an abortion due to the circumstances. 4. Most have an abortion due to financial reasons. Our government tries to shut down places where they help woman and children, or they won’t fund them, but they give millions of dollars to fund the abortion industry. 5. Why do we think that those who abuse children are more reprehensible and more horrible than those who have abortions? If you can throw an unborn into a garbage pan, why not a one-year old? Have you seen an aborted baby or one killed by chemicals? 6. Our government wants to bring the population growth down for their own private reasons, as well as the world’s population. And, it is not for mercy.
Sorry, Mr. Jackman, but the government should be protecting the unborn as well as you and me, the already born, the sick and the disabled. I know It is a difficult decision and I have been in that position, but I knew that my unborn baby was just as important as me! Protecting them is equal protection of the law. I don’t think women who feel they have no other choice should be placed in jail for murder, but there should be consequences for killing their own child on a case-by-case basis especially if they have had more than one abortion.
11.
Shelly | January 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Bea -
In regard to your #3 comment: “If they are dying, no law will stop a woman from having an abortion. I wish that were the fact, but it is not. With the exception of Kansas and Colorado there is NO other place that will allow any woman over 25 weeks gestation to end a pregnancy for ANY reason including if severe and fatal fetal anomolies are found at this point. A woman must simple wait for nature to take it’s course, which trust me is emotionally cruel. I speak from personal experience so I know what I am talking about. That is why it is a shame that Dr. Tiller was murdered. Now there is only literally one place – Colorado where these women can turn to for help should they decide that they want to end a dying baby’s possible suffering and well as their own emotional pain.
12.
K. Wright | March 7, 2010 at 1:58 am
Would you ‘end’ your emotional pain and your two year old baby’s suffering by ending his or her life? If you were suffering and dying of cancer, yet wanting every minute afforded to you, should we end your husband’s cruel emotional pain by euthanizing you? Because the law would take a very dim view of that, and you might, too. We ‘let nature take its course’ because it is not man’s place to decide who lives and dies, at least not without a trial and a host of appeals (due process). The reason for that is that we have a consensus in this country that we don’t kill the innocent. There is simply a disconnect that leaves the unborn babies without protection.
13.
keiron Jackman | March 7, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Do you think that’s a personal decision, or should the decision, for all, be left to you? Was Saul doing the wrong thing when he asked his armor-bearer to stab him through before the Philistines got to him, or the suicide pills worn by generals and spies during WWII wrong as well??
14.
Uncle Mike | January 26, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Whether or not the Freedom of Choice Act become the law of the land I believe that we can and must cut the abortion industry off at the knees by combating the pornographers with the same fervor we’ve been fighting for the unborn. Porn and abortion are the opposite sides of the same coin: lust. For every adult bookstore we shutter we prevent one abortion.
My (late) wife was gang-raped by five men. FBI statistics indicate that porn is implicit in 100% of sex-crimes.
15.
DKR | January 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm
What about the fact that studies have proven that over 99% of men watch porn? And 60+% of women?
16.
Rick R | April 10, 2010 at 3:44 am
Fact?
Proven?
Those figures are just stupid.
EVERYONE watches porn?
I don’t think so!
Not even EVERYONE working in Larry Flynt’s offices watches porn!
Are you really that silly?
17.
Not a Populist | January 27, 2010 at 10:12 am
Nice article, Mr. Jackman. I found it to be both caring and logical. From my perspective, a fetus (before a certain age) is in my opinion an extension of the mother. She is hosting it, bearing it, feeding it, etc. I think she should have the option to keep it or not. I don’t feel that aborting a fetus (before a certain age) is a terrible thing. Grossly stated, I flush an egg every month. I also understand that there are plenty of people that disagree. It just depends on your world-view. So let’s try to respect one another’s beliefs by not forcing ours upon everybody. No tax dollars for abortions, and no laws against abortions. I’d be willing to accept laws against late-term abortions, as long as the pregnancy and birth doesn’t threaten the mother’s health, and as long as it’s not a case of rape/incest, etc.
I don’t think the comparison between incapacitated adults and fetuses is particularly apt. Adults are citizens and have rights and responsibilities, fetuses are not and do not.
18.
Brandy Miller | January 27, 2010 at 1:54 pm
You flush an egg. An egg is not fertilized. An egg is not a human being. A human being begins at conception, and it is a separate and distinct life from the mother or the father. A fetus is a medical term for a particular stage of development for the infant in the womb. Yes, it is an infant. Every infant is completely dependent upon its parents for nourishment, protection, housing, and clothing. Are you suggesting that it should be legal to kill infants because they are helpless to defend and provide for themselves? Using that logic all children would be made vulnerable to the whims of their parents. Furthermore, the manner of conception (rape/incest) does not in any way change the humanity of the child. To allow for infants to be put to death because of the crimes of their fathers is barbarous to say the least. If we do not have the right to life, what other right matters?
19.
notapopulist | February 3, 2010 at 3:26 am
You might note I was careful in my comment to not thrust my views onto you, or to convince you that you are wrong. I indicated that I understand and respect the fact that other people feel differently than I do. I’d ask you to afford me the same respect.
I stated it was my intention to respect the beliefs of both sides. On such a controversial matter, and one that is close to evenly split by vote in our country, insistence on legislating purely one way or the other is foolhardy and selfish.
I get that you believe in your heart that it is a sin to abort a fetus. Unfortunately for you, enough people disagree with you in your own country to make it impossible for you to assert your viewpoint over everyone else’s. I fully support you in your personal endeavors to make things easier for pregnant women to get the care you deem appropriate, but I don’t think you have the right to mandate your vision of the world for the rest of us.
Aside from that, the Constitution does not specifically allow the Federal Government to legislate this issue, so for me, the issue is moot. Take it up with your state.
20.
KOOLWOMAN | May 14, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Brandy, I simply cannot believe that you would expect a woman who has been raped or incested, should have to bear that child and be constantly reminded of that awful act of being assualted in the most horrifying, demeaning, humiliating way. She could never heal from this violence to her body and her very soul, so I have to disagree with you on this statement.
21.
Tom Seymour | January 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Current law allows a pregnant woman to choose within a certain time period, with few exceptions, whether the pregnancy will continue or terminate.”
THis is a false statement. There is no ACTUAL prohibition on a woman choosing abortion at ANY TIME during a pregnancy. Doe v Bolton prohibited any limit on this decision to abort, provided that a woman’s “health” is implicated. “Health” is then defined broadly essentially to include any condition that any woman can cite during pregancy.
22.
Sam | January 28, 2010 at 6:10 am
Keiron,
Let me commend your post for addressing one of the most important aspects of this debate. The manner in which this issue is used to divide (wedge) people is reprehensible. With all deference to my friends on the right conservatives have used the issue to create a me against them attitude. As you point out “Americans should seek compromise and respect each other, and not allow profound issues such as abortion to divide the nation.” Once people give up on persuading the hearts of those that may get seek an abortion to reconsider and move to the position of dictating by law my judgment they begin to become Judgmental of those that do not hold their views. I personally see that people who are pro choice are much more likely to embrace a prolifer on other issues than vice versa.
Let’s examine the label prolife. Does the fact that one believes in choice mean that he or she is anti life. The pro life movement has made a distinct effort to foster this belief. One example is a bumper sticker that I saw this weekend. It read “there is no such thing as a pro choice Christian.” Needless to say I was taken back by this insult. This person is willing to use one issue to pass the most personal judgment or decisions that an individual makes about his or herself. I reject this statement and all its implications. Being pro life can also mean that one supports the quality of life for others, the poor the sick and all those that suffer day in and day out. Just because you save a physical life does not make you prolife if you leave that life to wither on the vine.
Each one of us could talk about this issue for days, but let me say this. One of the tenants of Christianity as I was taught is that man was given free will. Man can choose to take the path the God has laid out for him or not. The Lord could have forced his will upon us. Instead he explains to us out of love what those laws are. Then he leaves it up to us to decide. As Christians should we not take a clue from God and persuade out of Love the behaviors we feel are moral? Will our energies not be better served caring for abandoned children, or preventing unwanted pregnancy from happening in the first place? God gave us a road map. Did Jesus spend time trying to change the Roman law? Instead he taught God’s law. In effect Jesus was pro Choice. You can not legislate morality, and Abortion is a moral issue.
Kieron, continue to find common ground that we can agree on and move forward on.
Thanks.
23.
keiron Jackman | January 29, 2010 at 6:32 am
Sam,
You make great points.
24.
notapopulist | February 12, 2010 at 6:49 am
Sam, what a well-written response. Thanks, it’s not often one reads such an even-minded letter regarding a hotly-debated topic.
25.
Al | January 29, 2010 at 12:49 am
Al’s Abortion Clinic – You rape ‘em, We scrape ‘em. No Fetus can beat us!
26.
Tom O'Toole | February 5, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You compare a newly conceived child with someone on life support, and think folks should take into consideration the murderer mom is possibly a similarly compassionate relative ending the life of her child? (Not to mention the horrendous regret she will suffer through the silence, depression, and guilt it will cause *her* for the rest of her life.) There is NO defense for abortion whatsoever. Abortion comes from the devil. He is tricky. Don’t listen to him. –Jeanette O’Toole (not Tom)
27.
notapopulist | February 12, 2010 at 6:55 am
I suggest you not listen to the devil, my dear Jeanette, and let everybody else escape from your evil eye to live their lives as they see fit.
If you’d like to contact me to provide for my good life, means, and happiness for me, please feel free to indicate here thusly. Until then, I think I’ll keep my own counsel, due respect freely given.
28.
Brooke | March 5, 2010 at 12:21 am
The abortion I had in 2001 was one of the best decisions of my life. My only regrets are getting pregnant in the first place and waiting so long to have it done- by the time I had saved up enough money, I was close to 25 weeks. Because of my abortion, I was able to stay in school and complete my degree. I have no regrets over the procedure, and I’ve suffered neither depression nor guilt. Although I anticipate never needing another abortion, I would buy an abortion coverage plan just to support other women who may need one.
29.
Mark F. Paxton | March 22, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I commend you on your comment that you regret getting pregnant.
In reference to your comment about waiting until the 25th week. I have friends who are Neo-Natal Nurses and tell me that many babys have lived after being born as soon as 22 weeks. Why didn’t you wait another 8-10 weeks and give the child up for adoption?
30.
Tim McMullen | April 23, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Brooke—
I, too, commend you for your decision, and for the forthright admission that you make. This is not a backhanded compliment suggesting that you really should have brought an unwanted pregnancy to term. Rather it is a true compliment on your having the wisdom and fortitude to make a reasoned decision about what was best in your life.
The claim that “the woman will regret it for the rest of her life” is a flagrant falsehood promulgated by anti-choice forces to terrify women and shame them into giving up their right to control their own body, but it is in no way born out by the experience of a huge majority of the millions of women grateful for the termination of their unwanted pregnancy.
Many women and men may, in fact, feel sorrow, perhaps even regret from their decisions. This is, of course, equally true of millions of parents who actually have children. I recently read an Ann Landers column from the 70′s (can’t verify its accuracy or even its attribution, but Google “Ann Landers having kids” and you’ll find it) in which she had ask a general question of her readers, and something like 70% said, “No, if I had it to do over again, I would not have children.”
A women who ends a pregnancy so that she can be better prepared to have a child and start a family, or the woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy so that her current family will not be unwisely and unreasonably burdened, or a woman who chooses never to have children and who seeks an abortion to maintain that decision, should be acknowledged for having made a life-affirming decision.
Thank you for your candid admission. My song, “Talking Herstory,” on YouTube, addresses some of the intellectual and religious underpinnings of the attempted subjugation of women by the spurious argument that a women’s womb is merely “a location.”
31.
Brooke | May 9, 2010 at 3:16 am
Mark, when I conceived in January, my father was in the final stages of cancer. We were not on good terms at the time, and I was abusing alcohol and prescription painkillers to deal with the stress. My father passed in March and I didn’t realize I was pregnant until April – I assumed my sporadic periods were a result of the stress and I didn’t think to get a pregnancy test until my breasts began to grow. So, during the first 4 months of gestation, I was ingesting large quantities of substances widely known to be harmful to developing embryos/fetuses. Although I didn’t specifically ask the doctor, I assumed the child would be born at least partially disabled, which would probably put it at a disadvantage for adoption.
But let me be completely honest – I also just did not want to continue the pregnancy. I didn’t want anyone to know I had been pregnant (other than my boyfriend and mother; both went to the clinic with me and were very supportive), I didn’t want to get big, I didn’t want to deal with labor and recovery, I didn’t want to risk getting attached to a child I was obviously unprepared to raise.
Tim and Mark, thank you for your kind words. Ideally, I don’t think abortion should ever be anyone’s 1st choice or only choice for birth control. My boyfriend and I were not using condoms consistently, but I could not afford birth control on my own. If birth control had been more readily available, I believe I could have avoided getting pregnant. I agree with Hillary Clinton that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and I think the best way to achieve this is not through legal restrictions, but through increased availability of low-cost, reliable birth control. If you want to decrease abortion, the best way is to prevent the unintended pregnancies in the first place.
32.
Chris | February 15, 2010 at 10:30 pm
You make the argument that the fetus is on “life support” and the mother should have the right to decide it’s fate. So tell me, is the newly born baby a self sustaining human being? I would say not – my children all need my “life support” to keep them alive.
So, should a parent have the right to end their child’s life? I think we agree the answer here is no. So why should the unborn child not have the same consideration? Location?
The right to abort is absolutely absurd and any intelligent person should be able to realize this.
33.
keiron Jackman | February 15, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Yes, I agree with you if it were possible that a fetus could survive on its own naturally breathe, heartbeat, brain function and can develop naturally I believe the government has the right to protect that life. Just as if you are unconscious and maybe in need of breathing assistance, your loved one cannot simply pull the plug on you because you are in not in the medical position/category/state that allows that authority. It is not about being a fetus, you cannot use that term…remember it is an individual with rights; therefore it is really a medical condition in which the individual is unable to naturally survive and that diagnoses allows the loved one to make the decision to continue or end life. If the law would emphasize that a little more when a pregnant woman is assaulted, battered, raped, or murdered there would be two charges instead of one. That is the benefit, because no one but the mother/parents should have the authority to end life prior to being able to live outside the womb.
So your objection to abortion has an affect, under the law I believe, on your ability to determine if your loved one on life support lives or dies because the fetus and your loved are both individuals with rights moreover special rights because of their medical condition.
34.
John Ellis | March 4, 2010 at 8:53 pm
GOOD POLITICS — GOOD RELIGION — ONE AND THE SAME
Good politics we may encounter once in a lifetime if were so lucky, and only in another nation until Empire USA is put out of its misery.
And good religion not in my years old and gray have I experienced from any church, temple of synagogue of any size.
But, though the perfection of being harmless one may argue is a miracle not to happen in this world, may I suggest that to know what it takes to be harmless, this is by no means rocket science and done easy even by us the dumpiest of creatures, laboring men of slow and careful thought.
SAME MEANING
So first we need to agree on what we mean, when we say we really mean it and have a conviction that others feel has an exception, contradiction or hypocrisy in it.
Crime and evil: a physical act done by one human to another.
Theft and greed: to take more then you deserve.
Fraud and sin: an intent to enrich yourself upon the misery of another.
Harmless and righteous: to feel this day of life is more then anyone deserves
and out of gratitude to give all you can give.
Abortion: abortion is evil, but a far greater evil is the guilt of causing
poor women to be wasted in back alleys because
government failed to give them a sanitary abortion.
35.
koolwoman1924 | May 14, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Very good post, John, and I agree.. If there were social programs to support mother and baby until child is 18, there would be far fewer abortions. For a child to be born into a life of poverty, suffering, neglect,verbal abuse,emotional abuse, and physical abuse is intolerable.. How do I know they will be abused? If they are unwanted, they will be abused.Period.
36.
koolwoman1924 | May 14, 2011 at 11:02 pm
My point is that if pro-life folks would insist on social programs to help sustain the life of mother and child until child is 18, then I would take them seriously that they believe that life is precious, More precious than tax cuts.
37.
John Ellis | March 4, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Chris: “So, should a parent have the right to end their child’s life? I think we agree the answer here is no. So why should the unborn child not have the same consideration?”
REAL ISSUE: Should we voters order government to use deadly force to compel a woman to perform an act of love to her baby?
For childbirth places a woman in harm’s way and is the greatest risk of death a healthy young women may encounter, it depletes her calcium, could permanently damage teeth and bones, and many complications to numerous to mention.
Never should we use the deadly force of government to make people moral, as it is the greatest evil of all and only makes society more immoral.
Yes abortion is evil, but a far greater evil is the guilt of causing poor women to be wasted in back alleys because government failed to give them a sanitary abortion.
38.
Mark F. Paxton | March 22, 2010 at 7:27 pm
What happened to taking percautions to preventing the pregancy to begin with? Education is the best answer. Not abortion.
39.
Traci | March 6, 2010 at 11:31 am
This is very insightful. Thank you for this. I really do think I will sign up for updates.
40.
Mark F. Paxton | March 22, 2010 at 7:24 pm
If a pregnant woman is murdered the person charged with the crime is almost always charged with the death of two people. If the courts look at the unborn child as a sanctioned being with rights in the case of murder how can anyone twist the issue around when it comes to abortion. If it’s murder in one case it has to be murder in all cases.
This is not a religious issue. It is a legal issue. It seems to me that those in favor of abortion want it both ways. They want a killer charged with the murder of both the mother and the unborn child but then they turn around a say life does not begin at conception when they want to abort a child for their own convenience.
41.
keiron Jackman | March 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Good point but remember its about authority. The authority to execute the judgment is the issue. You may want to pull the plug on your 103 yr old mother, but if some individual other than yourself or doctor were to end your mother’s life in any fashion that person is charged with murder, regardless of the fact you were going to pull the plug on your mother.
42.
Matthew | April 19, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Please note that ‘Fetus’ means ‘Baby’ in latin, so killing a fetus is killing a baby.
‘Artificially sustained’ could be applied to a 2 year old left without food. The argument here implies that its only a person if it can feed itself.
There’s a doubt about when life begins. Why then do people allow their mind to say its ok with this doubt, they may be killing a person even in their own minds.
If a pregnant person is killed its only a single murder until someone decides that its a baby.
Strange
43.
N.D. | April 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Clearly, when our Founding Fathers stated the self-evident Truth that all Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the fundamental, unalienable Right to Life, they understood that The Right to Life is endowed to each one of us from The Creator at the moment we are brought into being, not at the moment of our birth. The Womb was created by the Creator, Nature’s God (with the capital G) so that Human Beings would be protected during the most delicate stage in their development.
44.
Jim Fv | April 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm
It is sad to realize that there is such thinking as this writer’s and those who are praising it. His logic is so sophomoric, it’s not worth spending the time countering it. But what the heck. For starters – read the Declaration of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment. Then keep in mind there is a difference in innocent life and “guilty” life. Also, babies can’t feed themselves before or after they are born either, let alone, breathe on their own in the womb, so does the writer think that it is moral and legal to let them starve to death? And there is a difference in families making decisions on how to proceed with medical care on an elderly, dying member of the family than on a healthy, new baby at the earliest stages of its development – a development we all went through..
And finally, our government does not belong to politicians and judges. It belongs to the people. And the people are authorized to change it any time they want according to the highest law in the land which is the US Constitution. And that Constitution must be followed. If not, we have a right to change the wrong. There is not a right to health care, housing, work, etc. in the Constitution. That is the responsibility of the individual person. But there is a Constitutional right to life, and that right has been taken away from innocent human beings, not by the vote and will of the people, but by a body of nine appointed judges. It is our responsibility as citizens to make sure the right to life is returned for the protection of not only the unborn, but for the protection of all our enunciated rights given to us by God according to the founders of our country and the writers of the Constitution.
45.
keiron Jackman | April 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Wait a second there, I believe you read this post with blinders. As I have stated many times before, a person who is in a coma or unconscious, but has a great chance of survival/revival by any measure, is not subjected to the spouse/next of kin/guardian making a decision to pull the plug. Just as if a person who were to be placed in a medically induced coma, their guardian cannot say plug the plug. NO!! Therefore, you are the one who is discriminating by bringing guilty or innocence into it. This has nothing to do with that, it just recognizes individuals as individuals, whether fetus, baby, old, young, etc. and a medical condition in which a reasonable assessment is given where that individuals life can be saved or revived by appropriate means. A fetus cannot survive outside the mother (pre-20ish weeks) regardless, which is no different than an individual, whether baby or old, who has suffered sever brain damage in which it renders the organs effete, dead, broken, finished. So just like everyone, a mother has the right like any guardian to choose whether to artificially sustain or in the case of a mother bring the baby full term. You have to understand, if you believe life begins at conception – then that is an individual from conception and must be treated as such, no different than any other individual, and furthermore no different than any other individual suffering from the same medical condition in which they cannot speak for themselves and chances of survival (quality of life) even with medical intervention is next to none.
46.
Jim Fv | April 22, 2010 at 2:21 am
kj -
An unborn child is going through its normal developmental growth, not too unlike a born baby laying in its crib unable to eat on its own. Certainly you would not condone killing a baby because it can’t eat on its own, would you? An unborn baby is not in a coma with fully developed organs that once were functioning, nor physically developed enough to feed itself. The unborn baby is not in a “medical condition, but is in its normal development growth cycle just as you once were. It is already programmed in its DNA what it will look like, how big his/her feet will be, the shape of its nose, the color of its hair. That all was present the moment you were conceived. Nothing needs to be added to you from that point on except oxygen, nutrients, warmth and a safe confine. To compare that growth state to one who was fully developed is a stretch at best and illogical at worst regardless of condition of that once fully developed and functioning human.
47.
keiron Jackman | April 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Every human being is experiencing normal development growth. secondly, a baby is not a “fully developed” being. Will you discriminate between a fetus and a baby in a crib… I don’t ,,,they are both developing… how would you make the distinction and what are the rules when it comes to development. Did you know your brain doesn’t stop developing till you are about 50 yrs old. True a baby cannot feed itself, but a baby would otherwise survive by natural means. When that baby is hungry that baby will cry. A brain dead hungry baby will not cry. A viable baby is not a baby in a coma… there is no word in the English dictionary I can think of right now to describe what I mean by natural means of sustaining a viable being, whether in a coma or not. A normal baby does not need medical intervention as does a fetus would or a person in a coma or is brain dead or something similar.
I really think you have to put your money where your mouth is, and I don’t mean it disrespectfully, you have to stop discriminating. A being is a being, a human is a human, an individual is an individual, you cannot use baby or fetus, you have to be blind to labels and see everyone as a person with rights. I see no difference between babies and adults in this context. Yes I see a difference with other crimes, but in the context of rights, rather human rights I see all equally. So if a person cannot speak for themselves and the medical assessment is not looking good if left alone (without reasonable attention…which is feeding natural things…), the choice whether to sustain or let nature take its course is up to the guardian.
48.
Tim McMullen | April 23, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Keiron—
I am much impressed with your interesting and well-reasoned analyses in your posts and in your responses. I find that I do not necessarily agree with all of your points or the aptness of some of your individual analogies (I may weigh in on some specifics later), but the pieces are generally well-reasoned and relatively fair-minded, two qualities that are extremely hard to come by in the blogosphere.
I commend you for promoting civil and rational dialogue.
“The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy!
Seek Truth! Speak Truth!”
Tim McMullen
49.
keiron Jackman | April 23, 2010 at 10:57 pm
50. Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Gay Marriage « Keiron Jackman's Blog | April 24, 2010 at 4:43 am
[...] Posts Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Gay MarriageObama the Builder: You have a contractAbortion Religion & PoliticsWhat Makes Me [...]
51.
Ina Ayliffe | May 1, 2010 at 6:19 am
It is infuriating ,for me, to see men making these personal decisions for women. If you are serious about reducing abortions, then support social programs to support single mothers and children like child care, health insurance, food stamps, aid to dependent children.. grants for education, decent housing, pre kindergarten, nurse home visits. If you don’t want to support the mother and child, then shut up. Also, you could all have vasectomies. That would solve your problem with abortions.
52. Health Care: The Road to Washington « Keiron Jackman's Blog | May 18, 2010 at 4:45 am
[...] Posts Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Gay MarriageAbortion Religion & PoliticsWhat Makes Me RepublicanAvatar, Rubio [...]
53. Tea Party: Democrats getting served « Keiron Jackman's Blog | May 18, 2010 at 4:45 am
[...] Posts Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Gay MarriageAbortion Religion & PoliticsWhat Makes Me RepublicanAvatar, Rubio [...]
54. It’s not in the Constitution! « Keiron Jackman's Blog | May 18, 2010 at 4:49 am
[...] Posts Civil Rights, Discrimination, and Gay MarriageAbortion Religion & PoliticsWhat Makes Me RepublicanAvatar, Rubio [...]
55.
JPF | January 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Mr. Jackman,
Let’s examine your analogy of the closest person (mother) making the life and death decisions of her fetus. The reason your analogy fails is that we know, with tremendous certainty, that if we use “artificial” (absurd, since it is natural–the opposite of artificial) methods to sustain the fetus’s life, it will grow into a healthy and normal infant. In what state can a close family member terminate life support for a patient when the doctor KNOWS that the patient will improve? Life and death choices only apply for patients who have little or no chance of improvement (permanent vegetative state, for example).
The truth is that once you accept the overwhelming evidence that an individual human life begins at conception, you must protect that life.
Actions have consequences. We don’t allow risky behavior, such as drunk driving, because people die. It may be fun, but we have taught people that it is a no-no. Sex, too (especially sex without proper birth control) is a risk. If you take the risk, face the consequences. End of story.
56.
keiron Jackman | May 14, 2011 at 8:20 am
Thank you for your response. It took me a while but I’m back from a long sleep. Judging from your response I marvel at your all too soon conclusion, that “we know with tremendous certainty” that the baby will grow to a healthy baby.
Wow, not even Dr. Phil would say something like that. You seem to predict with substanital certainty that the baby will come to term. Well, even if that were true, you assume that these physiological issues are dispositive. There are many reasons in addition to health reasons, why a baby might not be fit for an environment; there are financial concerns, abusive situation, mental illness, sexual abuse, religious reasons, maybe the kid is a will grow up to be a serial killing Hell raiser (maybe God destined that individual not to be born). Furthermore, you should also remember that just because it is probable that a fetus if allowed to develop it would be viable, does not disprove my point. If I told you there are people that wake up from 27 yr comas, or were brain dead but came back, or had a terminal disease and survived that would not mean that all people in comas or have terminal diseases should be forcibly sustain a life for the possibility of a chance of waking up or getting healed.
The closest person with fiduciary relationship, always has a say. You have to realize that the fetus’s rights are your rights. You are no different than a fetus, had you been in a position similar to that of a fetus. Someone you love and loves you would decide what’s best for you. Do you think that loved one knows you 100%? Probably not, but you know they will act in your best interest according the their ability and understanding, please give those mothers with that decision to make, the same opportunity.