(quote) Halo, regarding being pro-choice and McCain's desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, read this article by Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html Dr. Paul also thinks Roe v. Wade should be repealed, but not simply because he's pro-life (which he is). He wants it repealed because it's not a constitutional issue, not within the scope of powers granted to the fedgov by the CoTUS, therefor it's a state issue. Social policy is not a federal issue.
This illustrates my "single issue". Even if I don't agree with Ron on the abortion issue (I, too, am pro-choice) I wholeheartedly agree with his rational and his constitutionality test that every issue must pass in order to get his vote. (unquote)
Thanks, bsdaddict, interesting and concise read. States' rights is a fascinating issue itself. Ideally that could allow for regional preferences and unique needs.
But some issues seem to transcend states' rights. Some issues are too important to allow variations from the national norm. Examples are national defense, international trade, and racial equality. Surely abortion, gun control, and capital punishment also qualify as national issues requiring adherence in all 50 states.
Opponents of federal legislation frequently try to weaken it by contending that for one reason or another, usually their preference for more states' rights, there is no federal issue and hence no requirement for federal participation. Trying to undermine the existing authority is an ancient debate technique.
I think it's despicable the way abortion opponents have tried to confiscate the term pro life or pro choice. Can you find one person anywhere who is not for life and for the right to make choices? Abortion proponents are for life and for their right to choose whether to give birth.
They are not against life and not against birth. They contend it is their individual right and not any government's to decide whether they should allow a pregnancy to continue to birth.
People who make the wrenching decision to abort may cherish life just as much as anyone else. In supporting the right to abort, I agree that it's a shame government ever had to get involved in what is a woman's most basic right -- to choose how and if to carry a pregnancy.
Yes, it gets complicated. I spent a lot of time researching the terms terminate, kill, and murder. Thanks to modern medical technology, we gain a clear view of what the fetus looks like from conception to birth. The more human it looks, the more any termination looks like murder.
But murder is "1. the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another;" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Kill is "1. to cause the death; make die."
Does any woman get pregnant to break the law and conceive a life just to murder it? Or even to kill it in a legal sense under existing law? Why would anyone ever do anything like that? No reward at all, just great potential discomfort, pain, anguish, cost, and maybe personal perceived guilt depending on individual religious belief.
Women have to live with an abortion decision all their lives. It seems logical and benevolent to offer women information about possible consequences and alternatives (including adoption). But then leave the abortion decision to each woman.
Do prospective fathers have any say? In my view, they have every right to try to influence an abortion decision one way or the other. But it is the woman's body. And yes, only she really knows who the father is, and then only if she has not had sex with more than one male during the time of conception.
In short, who else to better decide than the female who has the pregnancy within her?
What about girls wanting abortions, children who are not yet officially women? That's a classic gray area depending on variables such as whether they have competent parents or whether they are old and/or mature enough to decide. Rape and incest are other variables that usually qualify for abortion.
In such cases, boards of qualified physicians and other officials may have to participate in the decision, still always trying to do what the female wants or what is in her best interest (often adoption) if she is unable or incompetent to decide.
Lawmakers with the best of intentions try to walk the fine line between human rights and killing. Murder is based on intention as much as result.
Unlawful, malicious, premeditated -- does any woman get pregnant to kill her baby? Doubtful.
The laws place all sorts of conditions on abortions. Many of them are term limits. Who could stand to see a woman give birth and then kill the baby?
Who could stand to see anyone kill anything that looks a lot like a baby, e.g., fetuses more than three months or so.
Women who decide to abort make an awesome decision. As a man I am grateful that, in my view at least, it is not my decision. I think the decision whether or not to give birth is between a woman and her god, whatever that is.
I think modern medicine should help the woman whatever she decides, and I'm content with the present definitions of allowable length of pregnancy when abortion is allowed simply because I can't think of a better way to do it.
I think some doctors are against abortion because the fetuses to them are all too human looking, and most of us never have anything like that intimate a view of humans in the making.
Other doctors see that and still support a woman's decision to choose to abort because they think it is her right to decide.
Then the issue of baby rights comes up. Actually fetus rights. Until birth and survival on their own, all babies of all creatures are parasites, depending on their host for survival.
I vote for host rights (specifically, the pregnant female's rights), including their (her) right to decide whether to have a baby.
I think the present U.S. federal treatment of abortion is a well-reasoned policy representing the usual challenging compromises of competing beliefs dearly held by both sides. It is simply incredible that American citizens can live peaceably under some major decisions implemented by the thin margin of a 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
All you loyal Americans and members of free nations everywhere, give yourself a pat on the back and keep the dialogue going. Better than blood on the streets of Baghdad from tribalism that either disregards or does not understand democracy.
Sorry this is so long-winded. But sometimes have to dot a lot of i's in such important and complicated topics. This is just my view. For or against, feel free to state your case so we can learn from each other.
And keep those vote-breaking issues coming. What other issues make you decide yes or no for a candidate?
