Why I DON'T Politically Oppose Abortion

from JoeUser Forums

On a personal level, I absolutely, completely detest abortion. That is my personal philosophy, and there's really nothing you can do to change that. But politically I hold to the Libertarian position, which is predominantly pro-choice (although there is strong debate on that subject within the party, that's not the topic of this particular article). While those positions may appear to be inconsistent, they are not, and I hope to use this article to help you understand why.

See, the first part of my belief hinges on my firm belief that you can't legislate morality past the basic laws for domestic tranquility. While I detest abortion, that is not a universally held philosophy, and in our society, the majority dictate the laws upon which this country is based, at least in theory.

Assuming we're going to live in a society where abortion is legal, which is the reality in which we currently live, what is the best possible scenario for someone who opposes abortion? In my mind, the best possible scenario would be that my tax dollars NOT be spent providing abortion...basically removing ALL government funding for the abortions. If you take the federal tax dollars (yes...INCLUDING Medicaid...if NARAL wants poor families to have abortions, let them hold bake sales to pay for it), OUT of the abortion industry, the simple laws of economics would cause it to dry up. This was the case in the Texas Panhandle, where reduction in funding to Planned Parenthood has led to the closure of another of its clinics in the area.

In short, I want tax dollars to be applied for the COMMON good, and not for the desires of a selfish woman who put her own carnal desires above potential consequences. I realize there will always be evil in this world...I just ask that that evil not be paid for out of MY pocket.

politics
8,462 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I cant help thinking I may have inspired this!  If so, not a problem!  Indeed I am honored.

But on the subject of abortion.  I respect your views, but if abortion is murder, as I believe, then there is no legislating morality.  There is just the issue of murder.

But I do realize and accept that my view is not the law of the land or universally accepted.  I mourn for every death, but until my view is accepted as the law of the land, I will not be in anyone's face calling them baby killers.  I will say prayers for the babies, but I am not going to attack their psyche since evidently, they do not believe they committed murder.  And that is a very harsh stigma to live with.  They have their own problems, and I hope and pray they come to grips with them.  And then grow.  Some will, some never will.

But that is me.  I cannot accept abortion, just as you cannot accept murder.  But as long as it is legal, I will not be calling anyone baby killer.  For if they do not believe as I do, they dont think they are, and I cant either.  Just misguided.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree that Govt money should not be used to pay for abortion. I have not made up my mind about the issue of abortion yet. I don't like the idea of people abusing the the idea that they can have sex without caring they get pregnant or not because the Govt will pay for the abortion, if legal. But then I don't like the idea of a child being brought to this world and neglected by the parent, taking in by our Govt then placed in a foster home till he/she is adopted (not always the case) and possible by a family who might seem caring but in turn should have not been the best choice for the childs new parents (not always the case but does happen).

I'm split over the idea. Can't have your cake and eat it to as they say. I will have to weigh out the pros and cons and make a decision someday.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
politically I hold to the Libertarian position, which is predominantly pro-life


Gid, this looks like a typo.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

But on the subject of abortion. I respect your views, but if abortion is murder, as I believe, then there is no legislating morality. There is just the issue of murder.

Dr.,

In a perfect world, that would be so. But the fact is, we don't live in a perfect world, and for every scientist we can produce to say that life begins at conception, the opposition can produce ten that say it doesn't begin until the sixth month. That's a sad but true fact we have to deal with in addressing the abortion question in the imperfect world in which we live.

And, yes, this was an answer to your comment on Brad's thread. I posted it here because I didn't want to hijack Brad's thread unnecessarily.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gid, this looks like a typo.

Noted and corrected. Thanks for the catch.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's my belief that women--like all people--absolutely have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies (within broad limits; let's save the debate over the war on drugs for some other time).

My problem with abortion is that it's only a question of a woman's right to choose if there's no other people involved. I'm just not convinced that there's no other person involved, and I'm concerned that the so-called "pro-choice" faction is defining humanity out of political expedience and ethical convenience, rather than with proper care and attention to the larger implication and the future impacts of their philosophy.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

and I'm concerned that the so-called "pro-choice" faction is defining humanity out of political expedience and ethical convenience, rather than with proper care and attention to the larger implication and the future impacts of their philosophy.

VERY worthy of an insightful, stute!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

In a perfect world, that would be so.

Indeed!  That is why I am not an "in your face" anti abortion person.  See my point?

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

politically I hold to the Libertarian position, which is predominantly pro-life


Gid, this looks like a typo.

I prefer a freudian slip!

But I did understand.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Indeed! That is why I am not an "in your face" anti abortion person. See my point?

Oh, I DO see your point, definitely. I just pray that MY point is proper in the eyes of God.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
good article....agree totally. Tho I wish we could put abortion in the "murder" category but it's not.....so just don't get me involved by paying for somebody else's responsibility.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oh, I DO see your point, definitely. I just pray that MY point is proper in the eyes of God.

Amen for that.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"While I detest abortion, that is not a universally held philosophy, and in our society, the majority dictate the laws upon which this country is based, at least in theory."[/quote

I agree. So let's put it to a vote, or at least allow it to be legislated, instead of declared a "right" by God Emperor Court.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The anti-abortion argument at it's core is a religious moral value and the government should not be legislating religious morality. While abortion is never a good thing, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, can't care for, or that endangers her health is even worse. The moral consideration ultimately must come from the pregnant woman and her husband, if she has one.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree. So let's put it to a vote, or at least allow it to be legislated, instead of declared a "right" by God Emperor Court.


Agreed.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree with BenUser. We legislate against murder because murder is wrong. If a fetus is a human being, then it is wrong to kill it no matter how inconvenient it is for the mother.

The question of a fetus's essential humanity is a metaphysical one, but not a "religious moral" one.

As it stands, Ben must explain to us what we should do about the three year old who suffers brain damage in a fall, and becomes too costly for his parents to support. It would be convenient if we could just wave the Supreme Court Wand and say, this thing is not human, the "parents" may dispose of it however they please. What makes a fetus that the mother does not want or or care for differnt from an infant, child, or adolescent that the mother does not want or care for?

And why are we content to let the Supreme Court decide such a contentious and complex issue? Wouldn't it make more sense to arrive at a national consensus through the democratic mechanisms of representative legislation and constitutional amendments?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
While abortion is never a good thing, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, can't care for


Ben, as far as I'm concerned you blew it right here! She doesn't want the child? She should have thought about that "before" she had sex! Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"While abortion is never a good thing, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, can't care for"


Yes, and I don't think I should make the payments on these loans.

The fact is babies aren't unwanted in the US. People wait years to adopt an infant, and spend thousands of dollars adopting them in other countries and bringing them here. I find the idea of all these unwanted kids rather dubious...
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is definately possible to be Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whether abortion is right or wrong is a matter of faith. I wish there were less. I wish people took responsibility for their actions. I also wish there was world peace.
The problem is that everyone is arguing over the wrong question. Even the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, acknowledged the significance of "viability." As science developes, the current milestones (trimesters) will have to be adjusted. While this will not sit well with those who parrot the ficticious "right to choose", it actually hints at the real question.

When does a fetus become an "individual". That is the only question that needs a legislated answer. What ever we decide, as a society, is the line, period. Our Constitution and laws recognize, and until rather recently only recognized, individuals. Once it is an idividual, all pro-choice and pro-abortion claims of privacy and personal liberty evaporate. Until it becomes an individual, I guess abortion has to be allowed.

One thing is certain. We have to either politically resolve this in a consistent, reasoned way, or continue to spend significant, destructive energy and thought on one more way of making life less pleasant for all of us.

As for the Libertarian position, regardless of your position on abortion, government certainly has no business funding surgery that is purely elective. And nearly all excuses for claiming it neccesary, social stigma, phsycological trauma, not "ready", how a parent, boyfriend or husband might react, etc. are not applied to anything else. So they shouldn't be applied here either There might be a case for rape, since being a victim of someone else's actions are legally different from being a victim of your own voluntary actions.

Just my 10 bytes worth.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
or that endangers her health is even worse


I would like to know how a fetus endangers the life of a mother? I mean I know there are situations where the birth of a child could cause the death of the mother but simply because she does not want the child it's automatically OK to say kill it before it kills her? Doesn't every woman who gives birth go thru the same dangers?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, I think I completely agree. And I am not a Libertarian.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

People wait years to adopt an infant, and spend thousands of dollars adopting them in other countries and bringing them here.

And CPS runs a baby mill removing children from loving families to meet the demand as well

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for the Libertarian position, regardless of your position on abortion, government certainly has no business funding surgery that is purely elective.

If you were a registered user, I'd have had to tag you with an insightful for that point. Good response.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is definately possible to be Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice!

Exactly, Jeremy. It's very possible. I'm a good case for that. I am a person who finds it morally reprehensible to condone the killing of a child. Having said that, I am also someone that does not believe in forcing my beliefs on others. While abortion is not an option for myself (and happily, for my wife as well), it is not my business to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.

So, I'm all for others having the right to choose for or against abortions - for themselves. I just wouldn't choose it for myself.