|
|
Thursday, February 17, 2005
|
|
WHEREIN skippy GETS ALL UPITY ABOUT ABORTION
It wasn't long ago that I wrote about freedom. In that post, I mentioned abortion in one sentence. Of course, I got three comments on the post, all of which pertained to abortion.
The way that I see it, both sides in the abortion in debate have been intellectually dishonest. Each side wishes to cast themselves in misleading roles, some as "pro-life" and others as "pro-choice." Both, generally speaking, do a disservice to the labels that they wear.
Very few that proclaim themselves as pro-life are consistently so. If one declares themselves of the belief that only God can take a life, which is the argument against both abortion and euthenasia, this would preclude support for the death penalty. Very rarely do you find someone who believes, as I do, in abortion, the death penalty and euthenasia. Conservatives tend to feel that you are safe at the beginning and end of life. But in between you're pretty much fair game.
I can hear conservatives now howling that, "Yes, the STATE can defend life as it takes it, all that we demand is that INDIVIDUALS aren't allowed to make that decision." When you think about it, that's not a particularly conservative argument, is it? Don't get me wrong, it's a fine religious argument -depending on your reading of the Bible - but its a piss-poor conservative argument.
The saddest part is that conservatives don't call for an automatic death penalty for those who kill abortionists. That conservatives who, as a rule, can't wait to kill criminals plead for mercy for murderers is testiminony to hypocracy. There should be a special place in hell for such people.
On the other hand, the liberal argument is downright evil. Liberals argue for the abortion of those who might be considered living and by anybody's definition, innocent can be snuffed, yet convicted murderers - who are almost always guilty - should be spared. To be fair, liberals are split on euthenasia.
There are logically consistent arguments to be made for and against abortion, the death penalty and euthenasia. Life is either sacred or it isn't. I happen to believe that it isn't. I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent. This is something that neither liberals or conservatives aren't. Both sides pick and choose at which point life is "sacred."
"Sacred" is a pretty heavy word with some pretty serious connotations. If one gets all theological about it, there are very few things that are only sacred sometimes. Truth be told, I can't think of any.
A few weeks ago, I talked about the liberal case for reversing ROE v. WADE (1973). When I wrote that piece, I figured that it would be at least a decade before anyone bit. As it happens, I was wrong. South Dakota took a pre-emptive bite.
Abortion should be a crime in South Dakota if states are given the right to outlaw the medical procedure, a House panel recommended Friday.
The State Affairs Committee unanimously approved HB1249, which would make it a felony to do abortions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is overturned. The bill would allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant woman's life is at risk.
Those who do abortions could face up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.
This provision of the law is a prime example of why the "right to life" movement is full of shit. If indeed abortion is murder and the doctor is prosecuted for such, it stands to reason that the mother would be guilty of first degree murder, enticement to murder and criminial conspiracy. Why has NO ONE from the rigt to life movement suggested that a mother be so prosecuted? Again, this goes to intellectual consistency.
The committee changed the bill to remove a provision that would have made it a crime to advise women to seek abortions.
Why? Wouldn't it it be a felony to "advise" a woman to murder her bookie or abusive husband?
Rep. Joel Dykstra, R-Canton, the bill's prime sponsor, said it is designed to protect the rights of fetuses in case states are given the right to regulate abortion.
Rachel Hansen of the South Dakota Right to Life Committee, which helped draft the bill, said abortion rights supporters are gearing up for a fight in case the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
"In South Dakota, House Bill 1249 would throw a monkey wrench right in the middle of that strategy," Hansen said.
Rob Regier of the South Dakota Family Policy Council urged the committee to pass the bill.
"Send a message that South Dakota is more than just prepared to protect the unborn, but eager to," Regier said.
I will say this for South Dakota, at least they aren't hiding behind that "rape and incest" canard. There are few things that drive me as nuts as that. So often, anti-abortion people will concede a right to abortion in the cases of rape or incest. This implies one of two things. Either the life of a fetus created by rape or incest isn't as innocent as others or that right to lifers are completely full of shit.
I applaud South Dakota for not falling into that trap.
Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood said the bill is one of the most extreme measures she has seen. The measure would tie physicians' hands and ignore women's ability to make decisions for themselves, she said.
"Making abortion illegal never has and never will stop women from having abortions," Looby said, urging the committee to reject the bill.
Oddly enough, this argument has been a monumental failure in regards to the Drug War. Funnily enough, the "pro-choicers" never point that out.
Lok, I love abortion. I think that its adorable. However, anyone who has gone through my archives can tell you, I've never disparaged those who believe otherwise. I feel that being "pro-life" is a completely honorable. But that respect hinges on just a little bit of consistency. Saying that "all life is precious but aborting the results of rape or incest" doesn't cut it. Either life is precious or it isn't. It's pretty simple, huh? "Life" can be no more semi-innocent than a woman can be semi-pregnant.
Several of my commenters have pointed out that there is no conclusive proof of when life begins. In this I am prone to agree somewhat. Where I am inclined to disagree is where that should affect the freedoms of those involved. I would argue that until you can conclusively agree on a set standard of what life is and isn't, then the benefit of the doubt should rest with the person most immediately effected by the pregnancy. That would be the mother.
Beileving that religion is immoral is religiously protected. So is the right to practice certain forms of Kung Fu. However, that freedom stops somewhere between your foot and my face.
If nothing else, South Dakota has done something that I never figured that they'd have the balls to do. I've explained my reasoning behind this before. Now, you teenagers actually get to vote on it.
Have fun.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
