Lets be honest. I oppose abortion. I am very "pro-life." But, like
Cain, who is running for president, I really think that the decision,
at the end, is between the woman involved and God, with others having a
duty to do many things, including letting the woman involved have the
final choice.
Now, I believe in informed choices. I
was struck when reading about an abortion clinic in Dallas that drew a
lot of protestors (all the usual reasons, run by a lesbian, financially
on the edge, etc.) that they gave everyone who came in counseling and
care and that only about half of those who came in planning on using
their services did so. That is far less than many other places.
But,
regardless of what criticisms you had of the owner/doctor in charge,
her goal was to give women choices, and to give them the knowledge they
needed to make the choices be their choices and not anyone else's.
So,
I'll never be president. As pro life, I'd offend too many people. As
someone who really believes that in the end, other than making certain
that the decisions are made with understanding, the government doesn't
belong as the final arbiter, I'm open to all the criticisms that Cain draws.
Am
I right? Probably not. I'm as bad on this issue as I am on the death
penalty (I favor it, I'm just not willing to put any other parent's
child to death. I know, that is terribly flawed. No pro death penalty
person would like that position "won't apply it" and no one who opposes
it would like it either "in favor of the concept").
Don't
even get to what I would do with your taxes. I'd raise the
gas/transport tax (the highway trust fund needs more money). It has
been unadjusted for inflation for much too long.
Anyway, I'll never be president, so my thoughts don't matter.
3 comments:
I agree with you on each of those issues. I'm too moderate and honest to be elected president.
I think you've fallen for the trap of seeing the issue through the prism that abortion rights advocates have created...that the issue is about "choice" when it actually is about whether the child is entitled to due process.
Why is a newborn child, minutes old, entitled to due process, but an unborn child of 36 weeks gestation, for example, not so entitled? Drawing the line at birth seems awfully arbitrary, and the consequences much more serious than those matters for which we daily deny people a full spectrum of choices. A woman is legally barred from accepting an offer of employment for compensation lower than minimum wage -- sorry, no "right to choose" there -- but can end another life at her whim? That seems off to me.
In sum, what makes the choice to abort a pregnancy any more morally legitimate than the choice to own a slave? If I wished to take a slave, or a second spouse, or "chose" to take my taxes and instead donate them to a more worthy recipient I am legally, and rightly, prohibited from doing so. Pardon me if this has been hashed over already. But simply saying that terminating a pregnancy is ultimately a personal choice, especially in late term, is quite inconsistent with how society views our right to choose in much less consequential matters.
Anonymous, you might (or might not) be interested in something I wrote quite a while ago about when moral issues become political issues. I think you've badly mischaracterized why Stephen feels the way he does.
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/11/when-moral-issues-become-political-issues/
Post a Comment