Trust me, I take that label with a considerable amount of trepidation and even a little bit of shame. I’ve actually held off on making a post about this because it’s such a divisive issue, and I know it’s a position on which my conservative readers and me will likely not agree. Perhaps my libertarian peeps will, but you never know.
Anyway, let’s get one thing straight about my sentiments on abortion. I personally think that the practice itself is barbaric and not indicative of enlightened thought. The idea of going in, mangling a little baby, and scooping out its discernable body parts is wholly repugnant to me. I think that abortion is justified if it is in a case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger, but if you’re getting an abortion simply because you don’t want a child then I believe it to be completely immoral.
This is one of those Machiavellian moments where morals don’t necessarily line up with public policy. Although the preservation of life is a good thing, and although the preservation of little potential lives is a really good thing, I’m not so sure that anti-abortion laws would be good public policy.
Man, there certainly are some hotties in
the pro-choice movement . . .
I think it has to do with reasons of privacy, as bizarre as it might sound to some. We could say that abortion is only legal in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life (we’ll call them the Big 3 from this point on), but that raises some nasty scenarios. Take, for example, the folks in Indiana who were charging that if a law were passed based on that idea, then women would lie about being raped in order to get an abortion.
So what would women then have to do? Would they have to subject themselves to some sort of panel that would determine if they had actually been raped? Would we then conduct paternity tests on a family member if she claims the child was conceived incestuously? Or would we then allow the doctor to decide whether or not the mother would live, deny her the abortion, and then hope that the doctor was right about her survivability?
We don’t want shit like death panels, so why would we want abortion panels? Anti-abortion legislation would create so many contradictions about conservative assertions on the importance of privacy and the freedom of choice that baby Jesus would surely cry.
Although I think that abortions of convenience (I am not suggesting that the procedure itself is convenient or preferable to birth control) are immoral, I also think that it is wrong to presume to make that decision for a woman. Although I hate this phrase, probably because Liberals love to chant it in abortion discussions, I also think that it’s none of my business, and certainly beyond the purview of government, to ask a woman why she is making that decision.
It should always be a don’t-ask-don’t-tell affair. Now, am I going to be the person that donates to Planned Parenthood so women can have abortions? No. Although I support their right to choose, morally I can’t give my money to support the killing of a little life. If they could all assure me somehow that it was because they were raped or were going to die, then I’d feel less conflicted about it, but they don’t need to justify themselves to me—or anyone for that matter—so it’s best that I just not ask and not donate to such a cause.
At the end of the day, this topic
makes me feel like shit.
This all might sound hypocritical or contradictory, but I can assure you that it isn’t. There are plenty of things that are immoral but are not, and cannot, be law. For example, adultery is morally wrong, but it’s not against the law (I know it’s law in the UCMJ, but that is not a law that everyone is subject to). Lying is also immoral, but it’s not always against the law.
Why is this? Because there are some perpetrations of morality for which the law is incapable of meting out legitimate and just punishment.
As controversial as this topic is, I still welcome any and all discussion on it, even if you think I’m a traitor to morality or whatever =)