Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
To kill or not to kill - That is the question.... The abortion issue is a moral minefield, fraught with unforseen dangers far beyond the question of whether life begins at conception. If you want to kill your 'foetus', go ahead, let your conscience be your guide.by Wandering Weasel
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
OK enough already! I am so sick of this pro choice / pro life 'debate'. All you so-called pro-abortion 'rights' people out there, listen up!
Ladies, when you drop trou and sleep with a member of the opposite sex, you should understand (being duly and, unconstitutionally, State educated adults), there is a distinct possibility that a pregnancy will result. Whether you like it or not, it is there and it is growing. Once those cells start dividing, they can be the devil to put a stop to without some kind of outside intervention.
Given that you understand this concept of nature taking its course, then you have, by default, and constitutionally, agreed and entered into an implied contract with your willing (and most likely eager) partner to carry this pregnancy to its natural conclusion. Should the other contributing party require fulfilment of said contract, this wish should be respected. No ifs, buts or ands. You started it, you finish it.
If you both want to murder your own offspring, I won't stand in your way, the world is probably better off without your ill-disciplined, neglected brats running around committing crimes anyway.
All you guys who think you can 'bump and run', remember this: If you enjoy the pleasures of said 'act of love', then half of that said contract, and thus half of the resulting little bundle of joy, is all yours to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, mentor and generally see to the well being of, until he / she is old enough to punch your lights out and tell you to go jump in the pond. At which time you may feel free to throw said little bundle of joy out of the house.
What this boils down to is whether you are both so depraved that you will kill your own children to experience the enjoyment of a few moments of dubious pleasure or will you commit to your family and enjoy the full pleasure of their raising? Don't think that infamous (and, by the way, unconstitutional) Roe v Wade decision lets either of you off the hook. There are plenty of men around who think they can sleep soundly at night because, after all, it was her (once again, unconstitutional) right to kill the result of your 'night of passion'. Nightey night. You had nothing to do with it, right?
The question then becomes, if you had known that she was a psychopathic sicko when you met her, would you have been so quick to get so close to her in the first place? If so, then you're as guilty as she is. And ladies, I know this may come as a new idea, but simply because you have this unconstitutional 'right' to murder your unborn children, that does not mean that you should exercise said unconstitutional 'right' at every presented opportunity. Some women get themselves pregnant to garner an income from the unfortunate sap who was dumb (drunk) enough to entertain their advances. Others abort their children (yes, children) for the even more sinister motive of gaining revenge on a cheating spouse or ex-boyfriend. The list goes on and on.
The child at the center of the Roe v Wade decision is in his late 30's by now. I wonder if his mother sends him a birthday card? Hi honey, happy birthday, glad you made it, Love, Mom. PS. I should have killed you when no-one was looking.
I had the honor of hearing Congressman Ron Paul speak on the subject several times. As an OBGYN, he is personally opposed to abortion. He challenges the constitutionality of Roe v Wade because it assumes the federal government's 'right' to legislate morals (where are all of these 'rights' coming from?). His stance is that it is the States' decision to legislate on such matters. If you don't like the law of the State you live in, find another one, right?
In a free world, choices can be difficult, whether some federal judge says it's OK or not. Whatever you choose, you are free to decide...... Let your conscience be your guide.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
2007 Wandering Weasel, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Last modified: Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Wandering Weasel only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Wandering Weasel is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-11 08:48:07
Welcome to the Nolan Chart, Wandering Weasel. This is an interesting choice for a first article. I'm guessing you like controversy. It'll be interesting to see if you get it from readers.
Regarding the child at the center of Roe v. Wade now being 30, I think it should also be noted that the woman (Jane Roe; aka Norma McCorvey) is actually now a converted Catholic who is a pro-lfe activist. She was simply a girl used as a test case and did not really know what was going on. She had her baby (and maybe never intended to NOT have it) and now is on the side of the pro-life movement. I think someone like her who has been through so much deserves a little more respect than this article gives her.
I reject the notion that the only acceptable libertarian position is that of strict anti-abortion.
The question is, "when does a fetus become a child?" If you believe it is at conception, as most conservative Republicans do, primarily for religious reasons, then the libertarian position must indeed be strict anti-abortion. If you believe life begins at the moment of birth, as most liberal Democrats, then the libertarian position must be pro-abortion, including even late-term abortion.
Most people, including myself, believe both those positions to be extreme. For us, a fetus becomes a child at the point of viability. That is, when it could survive outside the womb. Due to modern medicine, this point keeps being pushed back, but not yet to the point of conception -- not even close. Opinions differ, but I believe most medical professionals would place viability after the second trimester, in most cases.
If you accept this, then the libertarian position on abortion defines itself. That is, before the point of viability, a libertarian must defend the rights of the mother to do with her body as she wishes. After that point, a libertarian must defend the rights of the unborn child against all aggressors, including its mother.
I’ve thought many times about a women’s “right” to abort (Kill) her baby and must say I believe it is murder. But I also think about another prospective this decision (Roe) should effect, in my opinion.
If a male and female conceive a child, the courts have determined it is the male’s responsibility to pay finically for the well being of said child. But the courts have also ruled that the mother has the right to kill the fetus.
If the male tells the female that he does not desire a child (prior to sex) and if she wishes to proceed with the relationship (sexual act), why then is it the males responsibility to provide for such child? Remember the male said I don’t want a child, so if the female elects to proceed doesn’t she proceed at her own risk? After all she can take birth control pills, a morning after abortion pill, etc. etc., and then if she desires she can abort the child. However if she decides to abort and the male does not support her decision, it doesn’t matter; it’s her choice, not his.
So with this said, I believe a male should accept no responsibility, nor should the courts rule he should, if and when a female becomes pregnant after being told by the male he does not desire children. If she decides to take the risk, and perhaps become pregnant, then the male should have no responsibility.
I realize this is an unacceptable twist and perhaps a little off thread, but it has always befuddled me concerning the male’s responsibilities and a female’s right.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-11 15:46:16
"If you both want to murder your own offspring, I won't stand in your way, the world is probably better off without your ill-disciplined, neglected brats running around committing crimes anyway."
Hmmmm. Methinks the writer of this piece has a bit too much vitriol in his or her DNA. Maybe SOME ABORTIONS are preferential? Maybe the world needs less vitriol and more reason, so we should screen for the vitriolic?
The abortion issue has been such a long and undecided issue in America for so many reasons I care not to list them. Some look at abortion as a birth control issue. Is there a difference between unnaturally blocking sperm and egg connections, killing sperm prior to reaching the egg, and removing an as yet unviable foetus from the womb to prevent it from developing into a child?
What criteria is the agreed upon criteria?
And so on and so forth. Reducing the issue to simple, ugly vitriol reminds us of the need for rationalilty and reason, as opposed to emotional outbursting and name calling.
The reason some issues stay so long in the public debate cruciable is because they are indeed moral dilemmas, and probably always will be.
I've said it a million times: You *cannot* legislate morality. You can encourage it, teach it to the willing, but you cannot make someone moral. No law will make someone moral.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Wandering Weasel, all rights reserved.