« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

More Than One Issue

By: qsclues (Diary)  |  December 23rd, 2009 at 07:21 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

With ObamaCare proving to be a complete Obamination (hey, I made a new word!), this whole debate has left me with a question.  I know what the answer to the question currently is, but I would think that many out there would be asking the same question and wondering why no one is Washington takes this point of view.  The question is this:

Why do you have to be for federal funding of abortion if you are pro-choice?

For the record, I am not pro-choice, but I could completely live with abortion being legal if there had been an actual vote on it instead of judicial activists deciding it for us.  My own personal goal is to simply make sure it never applies to my life…if everyone could just do that, abortion wouldn’t be an issue at all.  But I digress.

It would seem to me that a person should be able to say, “I believe that it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion if she chooses to do so, but since it is an elective procedure to amend a self-inflicted condition, it should not be the responsibility of anyone else to pay for it.”  While the opposite juxtaposition would make no sense, this seems like a perfectly valid point of view for a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative type.

So why is it that everyone in Washington who is pro-choice has to march in lock-step with the notion of abortion funding?  Why are these issues not recognized as completely separate?  The pro-choice leaders in the House claim that being pro-choice is the “mainstream” view when at best, it’s 50/50 these days, and I am quite certain that some of those pro-choice people are fiscally conservative types who may espouse the above point of view.  Why are these people invalidated?  The math would indicate that there is no way that half the country favors federally-funded abortions, and yet it is being forced on us.

Of course, the real answer in Washington is that “pro-choice” really means “pro-abortion”.  I know that, as does anyone here at RS, I presume.  But I would expect that this is a question in the minds of many others out there.

The same quandary applies to the moral “pro-choice vs. pro-life” debate and Roe vs. Wade…is it not valid to believe that life begins at birth but that abortion is not a Constitutional right?  The same question applies to partial birth abortion as well…you can be pro-choice but feel the need to draw the line somewhere.

In a nutshell, being pro-choice should not necessarily mean being pro-Roe, pro-federal funding, or pro-partial birth abortion, yet for whatever reason, this variety of opinion is not allowed on the pro-choice side.  It’s about time someone brought it up.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Leopard1996

    I tend to be pro-choice, as in I think abortion should be the choice of the individual states. If NY wants to allow abortion fine, If OH wants to ban abortion fine. If that is my main concern I will move to the state that has the laws that I agree with. At some point I always thought Adam Smith’s invisible hand would solve the issue just fine.

    I am with you on the belief that the whole pro-choice folks arguing for the federal funding of abortion, or the whole abortion is a national right in the consitiution, is the biggest load of garbage ever peddled.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Rather than rights being a sphere of protection for the individual against an overbearing state (so-called negative rights), the left has redefined rights as things that you are entitled to have (postiive rights) AND which the government is empowered to force others to provide them for you.

    So we hear about the right to education, the right to not be offended, the right to a rewarding job, the right to housing.

    These are desireable things to seek, but It’s this second half, the invoking of government power to secure those for you that creates conflicts, because the government ends up having to compel someone else to provide them for you, which reduces that person’s liberties – or compel someone to pay for them (via taxes) which is a different deprivation of liberty.

    So regarding abortion, once you start with the premise that abortion is a right, then the next step is to say the you have the right to access to abortion – which in turn leads to the argument means that if you don’t have the money to pay for it, then the government must pay for it. And finally, since you aren’t going to set up criteria for “who has the money” the final step is that everyone is entitled to have the government pay for their abortions,

    And this in turn creates irreconcileable societal conflict because people who oppose abortion are being compel into complicity via their taxes, so their liberties are being infringed upon.

    Especially as it is the courts that created this right in the first place, not a legislative/amendment process, so that the people are enjoined from negating the existence of that “right”.

    (Not to mention the whole life issue, as to abortion involving the killing of another person, one who is defenseless against this ultimate curtailing of their liberties and rights.)