View Single Post
Old 03-07-2006, 01:47 AM   #9
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough

The issue of abortion is definitly the social issue where I would be considered most "conservative" in the traditional sense. I'm pretty liberal on most social issues, but here I am staunchly in favor of the Federal Government's right and duty to forbid the practice of abortion. I can, however, see and understand why there are people who believe in what they would call, "a woman's right to choose." That is because, while this is a very tricky and complicated moral and scientific issue, it really boils down, I think, to one issue: Where does life begin, conception or birth?

So while I can understand and respect the opinion of a pro-choice person who believes life begins at birth only, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW A PRO-LIFE INDIVIDUAL COULD EVER SUPPORT ABORTION IN CASES OF INCEST AND RAPE. While people that are against abortion except in cases of rape and incest are probably comming at that decision from a pure place, and are simply trying to be compassionate and reasonable, it is simply conflicting with their convictions.

You either believe life begins at conception or birth. If you are pro-life and believe life begins at birth then you are a tyrant limiting the rights of the populace. Afterall, if what is in the womb is not a human, it is very much in the mother's right to do with it what she pleases, it is her body. If you are pro-choice and believe life begins at conception...I'm not sure what you are, but stay the hell away from me.

For the pro-lifers who have reservations about the South Dakota law because it does not allow for abortions in the cases of rape and incest, let me ask you one question: Why are you against abortion in the first place? Isn't it because you believe life is sacrosanct...and that you believe what is in the womb is a human being with inherent rights that must be protected? Maybe I'm out of the mainstream here, but that's why I'm against abortion. I don't get off on limiting people's freedom like a lot of my conservative brethren seem to do sometimes, but I believe that the act of abortion is the worst kind of violation of human right--the right to live. It is a violation of the right of the fetus. So...if you agree with me on all of that (and I know many of you don't, but I'm speaking to the pro-lifers) how can you possibly deny the RIGHT to LIFE to a human being, because that human is the product of rape or incest? It either is a human being deserving respect and possesing inalienable rights...or it is not--THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN. If you are arguing that a fetus conceived in rape does not have the same rights as one that is not, then by that argument fully grown adults who were the product of incest or rape also do not posses those rights. You could walk up to one and punch them in the face...or shoot them, it doesn't matter. They are completely devoid of all rights under this premise. If people don't have those rights from the start, why would they have them later on? It doesn't make sense.

So, in summation, if you are pro-life you probably hold the conviction that life begins at conception. Which means that any fetus, regardless of how it was conceived, posseses inherent and inalienable human rights that cannot be violated--i.e. you can't kill it. Last I checked, people who were the products of rape or incest are still human beings. Again, all this is much much different if you are pro-choice and believe life begins at birth, I'm not arguing where life begins right now, I'm just talking to the pro-lifers here.

So how does this all square with the provision that allows an abortion to take place if the mothers life is in jeopardy, which I fully support and agree with? Perfectly, since human beings posses a natural right to self-defense. It is a long-standing principle of most civilized nations that the only time where human life may be taken is out of self-defense. You cannot be convicted of shooting someone when they were trying to shoot you first. When life is in danger, exceptions must be made.

So, I guess this will all be moot even if it does get to the Supreme Court because at least five justices would overturn this law. The only definites against it would probably be Scalia and Thomas. No one knows how Roberts or Alito would vote on it, and the rest are definite no's, unless someone knows something I don't. And *then* even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, many many states will be allowed to continue the practice of abortion...rendering the whole thing pointless anyway, well pointless except in the fact that the Federal Government would no longer condone the mass murder of its citizens (from the pro-life perspective ). And since I'm feeling optimistic and I'd say we're about 200 years away from a Constitutional Amendment on the issue, I'd say everyone's focus should be on making sure we have as few abortions as possible. I'm not against condoms or birth control...SINCE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION IN MY OPINION. As they said on the Daily Show (and I think this is the most astute point I've ever seen the show make) if life begins every time a man thinks about having sex (which would lead to the banning of birth control), then the average man conceives a child once every three seconds!
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...

Last edited by Richard the Lionheart; 03-07-2006 at 08:38 PM.
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote