Pro-life hypocrisy

I should make the caveat that as a man, I am highly unlikely to ever have an abortion.

However, since I like to live by the golden rule, I would not like to preclude a woman from having an abortion.

In other words, as the bumpersticker says, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".

or

"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

In my case, it is highly improbable that I would have an abortion.  So, whether or not I would have one is a highly moot point.

In fact, if anything, this is a subject which really is not of my concern, which I guess is why I would call myself in the pro-choice camp, which is a good thing.

Since if we were going to make other's reproductive decisions for them, there are a lot of you I wouldn't have ever allowed to have breed.

But, there are two issues here:

1. does someone who is alive have a right to live their life free from the fear that it will be easily taken from them without legal process?
2. does someone have the right to choose whether or not they should have a child?

The problem is that some people would like to impose upon the personal decision whether or not to have a child (2).  If we are going to go down that path, should government impose how many children should be in a family?

Additionally, I have noticed that this debate is often guided by one's religious beliefs, which facially means that any attempt by government to impose any regulation of family planning is a violation of the First Amendment.  In other words, if your decision to intrude on another's choice whether or not to have a family is based upon your views as a Christian, then it is a violation of the First Amendment to have government impose that on another.

I would also add that this is a government intrusion into medical decisions, which if you don't like it coming from "Obamacare", then you shouldn't want it coming from anyone else.

So, since it is not my decision to make, but one to be made by a woman with the advice of her doctor--it's best I keep my opinion to myself.

Which clearly makes me pro-choice.

Unless, you like other people telling you how many children you should have, you should mind your own business about this as well.

Otherwise, you are probably one of the people I wouldn't have allowed to have had children.

If you believe life begins at conception

You have a problem.

Between 30% and 50% of conceptions (some suggest more [1]) end in spontaneous miscarriage. This results in a far higher number of terminated pregnancies from spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) than from intentional abortion.

Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for miscarriage.

The largest source of death is miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion. Indeed, if one considers a fertilized egg an “equally valuable” human life with “full human rights,” then spontaneous miscarriage is the single leading cause of death for "fully-valuable human beings".  And that includes if you are also going to say that life begins at implantation.

That would mean that God causes the most abortions if you are looking at this from a theological viewpoint ratter than a scientific one. In fact, perhaps we should go with the medical term "spontaneous abortion" rather than "miscarriage".

If we did that, would women who have miscarriages be guilty of aborting their foeti?  Even if we go beyond conception, we also have miscarriages up until birth and still-births.

The question is then "when does a foetus become viable"? 

In a secular society, which is what the United States happens to be, it really isn't the place of religion to dictate that type of decision.  In fact, it is is properly a decision which should be made by a women informed by her physician: not the state.

And definitely not religion.

Especially if god happens to be the worst culprit for causing abortions.

Aditionally, you also have to admit that one needs to provide proper pre-natal care if you are going to take the attitude that the pre-born have some right to life.  Unfortunately, most of the ideologically pro-lifers hate "Obamacare", let alone a single payer system of health care.

In fact, I find the ideologically "pro-life" tend to be lost on the actual concept of all this.

Especially since most "abortions" happen naturally.

[1]  The President's Council on Bioethics,  PCBE: Transcripts (January 16, 2003):  Session 1: Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account

Not only was the Nazi regime pro-gun, they were also pro-life.

In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased. In 1943, providing an abortion to an "Aryan" woman became a capital offense. Abortion was only permitted if the foetus was deformed or disabled in accordance with Nazi eugenics policies.

The Nazi mother's cross award

A case in point, Marie-Louise Giraud (17 November 1903 - 30 July1943) was a housewife and mother who became one of the last women to be guillotined in France. Giraud was a convicted abortionist in 1940s Nazi occupied France. She was executed on 30 July 1943 for having performed 27 abortions in the Cherbourg area.

In fact, the Nazi execution of abortion providers seems to fall in with radical pro-lifers extra-judically killing abortion providers.

Quite frankly the Nazis had very firm ideas about the role of women in Germany. Hitler thought that the population of Germany had to increase for the country to become more powerful. Therefore women were forced to give up work and have children.

On 5th July 1933 the Law for the Encouragement of Marriage was passed. This act gave all newly wed couples a loan of 1000 marks which was reduced by 25% for each child they had. If the couple went on to have four children the loan was wiped out.

Girls were taught at school that women had to have children and look after their husbands. They were told not to smoke or diet as it could affect their ability to have healthy children.

Unmarried women were also encouraged to have children and for those without a husband they could visit the local Lebensborn where they could be made pregnant by a racially pure member of the SS.

Quite frankly, anyone who is not historically ignorant should be afraid of where the US right is has been going.

See:

•  Ferree, Myra Marx (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press. 
• The Legal Framework of Abortions in Germany : AICGS
• Women in Nazi Germany
• Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945 

SARAH SILVERMAN IS VISITED BY JESUS CHRIST

And While we're at it:

Jesus still struggling to find publisher for Newer Testament

A new blog for you

Kid Shootings:

Every year, almost 3,200 children and teens die from gunfire, and another 17,450 are injured.

And Statistic of the Month

The firearms used by American youth ages 19 and younger in 90% of firearm suicide attempts and completions, and in 72% unintentional firearm deaths and injuries, were stored in the residence of the victim, their relative, or their friend. On average, 68% of suicides for youth ages 15-24 are committed with guns.
-- Grossman, DC, Reay DR, Baker SA. “Self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents: the source of the firearm.” Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, August 1999;153:875-8; American Association of Suicidology, Washington, DC, 1998.

And while you're at it--check out this blog post:

Gunfire Deaths in Children vs Pro-Life A Political Double Standard

Come on, why don't you go there and point out how better gun laws aren't the answer?

Afraid for showing yourselves up for being ignorant &%$£s!

President Obama Goes to Notre Dame

(photo credit Chicago Tribune)

The Chicago Tribune published an article by Mark Silva covering today's visit by the president to Notre Dame University. Most reporters seem to think that the protesters represent a minority of strongly outspoken pro-life supporters. The majority of Notre Dame students, the majority of Catholics and the majority of voters in general agree with President Obama's pro-choice position.

The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who served as the University of Notre Dame's president for 35 years, says he believes the school was right in inviting Obama.

The 91-year-old Hesburgh said in an interview Thursday with WNDU-TV that universities are supposed to be places where people of differing opinions can talk.

"It's like a common place where people who disagree can get together, instead of throwing bricks at one another, they can discuss the problem and they can see different solutions to difficult problems and those solutions are going to come out of people from universities,'' he said. "They aren't going to come from people running around with signs.''

What's your opinion? Is Obama making a good move today in accepting the honorary degree from Notre Dame? Isn't there a "church and state" conflict on the part of the pro-life position? Is the pro-choice argument a question of men controlling women? It often seems that way to me. For the most part, I realize it's not 100%, but for the most part it's male legislators and politicians demanding in the name of God to restrict what women can do with their own bodies. That doesn't seem right to me.

What do you think?

Bristol Palin Pregnant at Seventeen

CNN reports on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol. According to the article, this represents no threat or problem, John McCain even knew about it beforehand. In fact, the whole Palin family is fine with it, the only important thing being that the "A" word is not even mentioned. Keeping the baby is all that counts.

Sarah and Todd Palin issued a statement saying they are "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

How about admitting it's a difficult moment for the family? What is all this nonsense about being proud? What about all the screaming and tears that goes on behind closed doors in situations like this? Or are these people robots? I haven't met too many parents who are OK with their teenage daughter having premarital sex, especially if those parents are on the right religiously and politically.

And what is it with all this emphasis on her "keeping the baby." In a family where the mother is a pro-life politician experiencing global attention, was there any other possibility? Did young Bristol consider abortion and go to mom for advice? I seriously doubt it. So why keep repeating the "keeping the baby" bit.

The McCain aide insisted a key point to keep in mind is that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents."

I think they're shameless political spin doctors, whoever is responsible for the repetition. Serious pro-life folks have no option and no need to keep repeating it.

I'm pro-choice. The best argument for pro-choice that I've heard, and heard many times from the feminists is that they do not want the government controlling their uteruses. Amen to that.

What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.