Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Right to Choose (and the Consequences That Follow)



Abortion.
You can't have a federal election without bringing it up.
It's been 43 years since Roe v. Wade, and we're still talking about it. Abortion is legal, and has been for a very long time, and yet we are STILL talking about it.
And now I'm going to talk about it too.

The argument that a woman has the right to choose what does or does not happen to her body is a very compelling one. I don't believe there is anyone out there who believes that another individual should dictate what happens to a woman's body.

But it's not just a woman's body, is it? It's the woman and the life she is carrying inside of it.

But let's go back to the right to choose. I don't disagree with it. In fact, that very strong libertarian side of me that hates over-legislating things, wants to say it's none of my business, and let everyone choose.

Until I remember the innocent life on the inside.

But that right to choose. How can you argue with that? How can you argue that a woman must remain pregnant when she doesn't want the baby? It does seem unfair and almost cruel.

Until you remember the atrocity you are going to commit on the tiny body growing inside the woman.

But again, it's her right to choose, isn't it?

It is. She got to choose to sex. She chose to engage in an act that had consequences. She chose to engage in a life-creating act. And she has to live with those consequences.

Life is not fair. Life is often cruel. We make choices all the time, but we rarely get to determine the consequences that follow. Especially when the consequences involve other parties.

Like that little life growing inside of her.

I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose. But she also has the right to live with the consequences of that decision. And that consequence is that she created a new life. 


(And don't ever tell an adoption advocate, who comes from a family with many adopted members, that it's not fair to make the woman have a baby she didn't want. There will always be someone out there who does what the baby. Always.)

(Isn't it amazing how much money people will spend on a surrogate mother when there are other women out there aborting an unwanted pregnancy?)

As for the tangential arguments around abortion, such as Planned Parenthood. I have no problem admitting that Planned Parenthood does offer several valuable services to low income communities. But in no way, shape, or form, can I ever agree with federal tax dollars being spent to fund abortions. How can anyone justify that the government should be providing that service?

Insurance and birth control - if there is one thing I have learned in my past year of Obamacare nightmares, it is that you can always shop around for a different insurance provider. If the one your employer offers doesn't cover birth control, go get a different plan. And pay for the plan yourself. Because why on earth should anyone else have to pay for you to get birth control? And if you are going to argue that it should be a law that all insurance providers should cover birth control, they should also cover fertility treatments. And while I hate creating lots of laws to legislate every tiny thing, there is one law I would support- pregnancy and maternity leave should absolutely NOT be covered by disability. Since when was a pregnancy a disability? Maternity leave should be covered by all employers and insurance. In fact, I think the US needs to take a page from Denmark, Norway, and a few other countries, and actually pay mothers to take maternity leave. Why can't Social Security also go to mothers out on maternity leave? (And if you believe that the federal government should cover abortions at Planned Parenthood, why can't the federal government pay for the birth, instead of the death, of the baby?)

And one last thing- restrictions on abortions. If you are going to make such a major, drastic choice as to terminate a pregnancy, you should be educated on all of your options, by a qualified individual first. And if the woman is a minor, then, yes, she should have to have parental consent. If she still has to have a permission slip signed by her parents to ride the school bus, she should also have to have their permission to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see teenage girls forced into pregnancies they don't want. So let's provide real sex education that isn't just about diseases and abstinence. (Although, let's face it, abstinence is a highly effective form of birth control.)

I am all for a woman's right to chose, and to live with the consequences. Which does mean that if her choice was taken from her, and she was forced into sex (rape, incest, abusers), then I have no problem with allowing that abortion. And if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the mother has the right to chose between her own life and the life of the child. 

Monday, September 21, 2015

Going Team Fiorina


It's still early to really, 100%, completely go all-in with a candidate. After all, there is still way too much time left for skeletons and dark marks to appear. Unless, of course, you are Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and you are your own skeleton.
But as much as you can get behind a candidate this early on, I've decided I'm Team Fiorina.
I like Carly Fiorina's stance on abortion. I feel it's level, fair, and moral.

She's strong on education, and practices what she preaches. She has a master's degree. "You know one of the things this president loves to do is to distract us so I think he is trying to distract us from the fact that we have too many failing high schools in this country by offering community college for free. If we want to educate our children let us make sure that every parent has a choice and a chance to educate their children so that they can fulfill their potential." (Source: Forbes Magazine on 2015 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Mar 24, 2015)

Religious liberty is one of the most important topics on my list in this election cycle. Again, I think Fiorina has one of the most level, honest, and balanced answers to the gay marriage questions.



And personally, this interview on CBS This Morning sums up everything I feel about biased media questions and reporting. She completely nails exactly how I feel about voting and women. (And I can't stand Rush Limbaugh!)



So put me down in the Carly Fiorina column. I'm sold!

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Rick Perry "Transforms" His Position on Abortion


One week before Iowa and just two till New Hampshire, and Rick Perry has just changed his views on abortion- to an even more conservative point of view.
He likes to call it, "a transformation."
Previously he was opposed to abortion, except in cases of incest, rape, or risking the life of the mother. He has now transformed his views and opposes abortion even in the case of rape, incest or when the woman's life would be at risk.
He says he changed his views after meeting a woman who was the product/child of a rape. Her story was shared in an  abortion documentary screened by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that social conservatives are pretty powerful in Iowa, where Perry is in fourth place, but well within striking distance of beating Gingrich for third place. And it probably endears him just a little bit more to the Tim Tebow fans out there.

Source: NY Daily News
and Anderson Cooper 360

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Arguments about religious freedom

Vatican, religious freedom
Vatican Museum (open source photo)




Exactly what does separation of church and state involve? Keeping religious preferences out of politics? Keeping religious preferences out of government? Keeping religious doctrines out of public moral issues? All of the above? None of the above? And when does it include keeping the government out of religion? 
Right now all religious freedom is being threatened by both state and federal governments forcing churches to offer services that are not in alignment with their teachings. For instance, Catholic social agencies are being forced to either shut their doors or allow same-sex couples to foster or adopt. All feelings about same-sex couples and marriages aside, this is a complete violation of the separation of church and state.
The same thing is happening to Catholic Church owned hospitals- offer abortions and birth control or risk getting shut down! And another instance is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Migration and Refugee Services was denied federal funding for its highly regarded services that aid trafficking victims, after the Department of Health and Human Services stressed a preference for grantees that provide family-planning services. Did you catch that- a US federal agency prefers to give money to organizations that provide birth control and abortions. 
The current state of federal legislation is to support organizations that represent a more liberal agenda and to penalize organizations and churches that do not. Those who are happy with a more liberal agenda will praise this and call it a good separation of church and state. But really it is the equivalent of reverse affirmative action [where preference for minorities hurts the majority]. We work so hard to keep religious beliefs out of government that the legislation now favors anti-religious behavior and activities. 
I don't agree with this at all. It will be interesting to see if someday the world becomes so jaded against religion, that we completely kill it, before finally coming full circle with it and begin to protect religious liberties again. 


To read the pending legislation regarding religious liberties - 
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution
Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), (recently approved by the House and Senate in a bipartisan vote) (Also read, GOP Abortion bill passes House)
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361) 
and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).


Sources:
Bishop Lori to Congress: Respect Religious Freedom