Ms Lib R. Tea-Why I'm Pro Choice
Let me start by saying I am the mother of three beautiful children. I am a Christian, I believe that children are a gift from God, and I am personally pro life in that I have never had and would never have an abortion. However, I am also passionately pro choice.
I am pro choice on everything. So long as you do not violate the legal rights of another person, I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they want. For me, that means being a Christian wife and unschooling stay at home mother of three. If for you that means worshipping paperclips, smoking pot, and participating in a polygamous homosexual marriage then hey-don't let me stop you. So long as everyone in the paperclip cult and every partner in the marriage is a consenting adult of sound mind-huzzah for you.
How can I be Christian and believe that it's okay for people to choose polygamy/idolatry/abortion? Of course I believe in right and wrong, and those to me are very definitely wrong, but I also believe that God Himself is the creator of Choice. He Himself gave us the free will to worship and live as we please-and that means that not everyone lives to please Him. If He felt that it was good to give us that option, then who am I to stand in the way?
I also believe very strongly that the law should not be used to legislate or regulate people's actions based on personal morals. "Don't Kill" is a law based on morals you say, but it's not really. All laws in this country were designed not on morals (which the founding father specified in the 1st amendment were not to be legislated) but to protect the autonomy of each individual. If you look in the law (Constitutional or otherwise) no where will you see "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong"...it is always in the vein of protecting individual rights. If you commit murder, you infringe on the individual's right to be alive. If you steal, you infringe on the individual's right to their property.
So-why shouldn't the killing of a fetus be illegal based on the guaranteed protection of their autonomy? Firstly because in order to be covered under the law one must first be born. It implies this multiple times in the Constitution, but states it most specifically in the 14th Amendment where it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." A fetus is neither born nor naturalized, and is therefore not under US jurisdiction, nor protected under the laws of the United States.
Let's take it one step further still. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is in fact a US Citizen protected by it's law-the law can only grant EQUAL rights, not superior rights. By making it illegal to have an abortion based on fetal rights, the law would be granting the fetus the right to siphon directly off of the mother's body in order to live. My husband does not have that right. My born children do not have that right. No one in this world has the right to tap into my blood and take my nutrients-to use my heart to pump their own-to empty their bowels into my body....how can the courts grant rights that no one has, and still keep all rights equal?
They can't.
There is no legal justification to make abortion illegal-the only argument with merit is a moral one. However, while the moral argument may be valid in the scope of personal beliefs, it has no place in a court of law. You cannot make laws based on morals, because that feeds into the democratic "mob rule" cycle of government. Whatever faith/doctrine has the most believers makes the rules? That's a dangerous game of chicken for Christians to play.
True, at the moment we are the moral majority-but I have no doubt that it will not always be so. Once granted the power to legislate based on morals, the government can and will do it again....but maybe next time it will be based on someone else's morals. I for one would not tolerate other people's morals being foisted into my life-what happens if I was legally required to do something I did not believe in? Or if something that I believe in was banned? Allow the government to legislate based on morals and eventually one-probably both-of those things will happen.
I'm not willing to take that chance just to stop someone from excersizing their God given free will.
In the end, that fetus is a baby in my eyes-and I believe they will go to heavan to be with God, so I am not sad or angry for them. As for the mother-she is obviously in great need, to commit such a dire act, so if anything I have only more love for her and I offer her my service. These are the choices I make. This is what I do because I believe it is right. Others make their choices based on what they believe is right or best, and though we may disagree on what exactly that is neither God nor the law gives me the right to make their decisions for them.
September 18, 2009 at 8:15 AM
I'm afraid I have that overwhelming urge to speak up that's always getting me in trouble. If I may, I'd like to take a moment and address one of your points and then add my own two cents on another.
First, you say that a fetus does not and should not have the right to feed off of your body. That no one should have the right to essentially leach of another human being. While not so direct as the child that reorganizes your internal organs, those three beautiful children you describe are doing that very same thing. Sure, you could tell them I don't want to feed and/or protect you today, unlike a fetus, but if you did you would face the threat of imprisonment, fines, and having the children removed from your home.
So really the only difference between a child that is born and one that is not is the one that is born has more civil protection than the other. If you truly believe that a fetus is a baby, then both the external child and the internal one should be afforded the same rights.
As for the basis for our laws, there are many who view religion as a long outmoded attempt by the more intelligent of our ancient forefathers to place some organization amongst the hoards of marauders bent on robbing, pillaging and destroying anything they wished. A sort of early government, but one based on mysticism and the unknown, rather than on protection of each other's rights. So to say that the two should be separate is almost like saying that you like eggs but won't eat chicken because your a vegetarian.
Of course the pragmatist in me sees that "morality laws" would eventually lead to the subjugation of the less populous religions, but I'm more following through with an academic discussion than recommending a course of action. Sorry for the long post.
September 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
years ago, when i was a democrat, i would've agreed with this.
However, now I believe that abortion is murder. I also believe that any mother that is a decent human being will always put their child's life above their own, and that includes a fetus.
During all of my pregnancies, I struggled to remain sane while on bedrest for months. it was awful and it was LONG and miserable, but I would NEVER trade those months of putting my life aside so that I could hit the tennis courts.
ps I do understand why you feel what you do, but I don't agree.
September 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Nookleerman-Saying that children taking financial and emotional resources is the same as using and interrupting vital organs/life support systems is misleading. I give my financial and emotional support to my born children of my own free will, and at any time I could end my support of my born children by that same free will. It is always an option to give children up for adoption or to the state should I decide that I am unduly burdened by their presence. Not that I would, as I personally feel that my children are worth any sacrifice, however that is a right that I retain as their parent. This is just one more example of the laws making abortion illegal would give unequal rights to a fetus and take rights away from the mother.
You stated yourself that creating laws based on morals subjugates members of society who are apart of a minority, and yet you seem to imply that this is acceptable. However, in America, it is a guaranteed right that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. Should we decide to make moral legislation, we are obviously in violation this founding principle. Which is easy to overlook if the law is "on your side", however should the law turn against your personal morals I'm sure there would be an outcry on your part. If you are not willing to subjugate your morals to the majority, then you should not put others in that position.
GOPmama-Abortion is murder in what sense? In the eyes of the law? Legally, you can only murder a person-killing a cow, despite the fact that it is a living creature, is not legal murder. A fetus does not retain the rights of person hood (since it has not been born yet) and therefore you cannot legally murder a fetus. Morally, it absolutely can be murder depending on your beliefs. However, for reasons I have already stated, you cannot base legislation on morals without opening yourself up for future regulation or altogether ban of your own religious beliefs/practices.
You can think whatever you'd like about people who have abortions. It is your right to make personal judgments against them if you are so inclined. However, just for argument's sake, let's think about certain scenarios. You say any decent mother puts her child's life above her own....but what if she has more than one child?
Should a mother be legally required to continue a life threatening pregnancy that could leave her children orphaned? How does that infringe on the mother's right to live? What about her other children's right to their mother?
Or what about women who are in highly abusive situations? Pregnant women are 9 times more likely to be physically harmed by their partners-if a woman fears for her life from abuse, should she be required to allow the fact that she could die at the hands of her partner just so that she can continue her pregnancy? Don't forget that if she dies, the fetus dies as well.
I understand the compulsion to say "I believe this is wrong, so I can't allow it to happen", however in order to be just and equitable we must grant that other people don't believe as we do and that they should be able to act upon their own beliefs, with respect to the autonomy of others, without our interference. After all, if God respects our autonomy why should we not give people that same courtesy?
September 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I am someone who feels life begins as soon a child's heart starts beating. This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with facts. Since I believe that at this point the fetus in fact human, I believe all the rights of a human apply. This includes the right to life. A child is not a leech. A child is a human life. A fetus growing inside of its mother is not a parasite, its a part of human biology. If the mother does not want the child once it is born than she can give it up for adoption. I know it sounds cut ad dry and thats because in my mind it is. I don't believe in the death penalty for similar reasons. We may think that some people are the worst forms of scum that could ever grace the earth but that doesn't give us the right to end their lives. Only God has the right to end lives. Life isn't always what we had planned and sometimes it is more difficult than we ever thought we could handle. That still doesn't give anyone the right to cut another person's time on earth short.
September 19, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I will agree to disagree with you.
You say: So long as you do not violate the legal rights of another person, I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they want.
A baby is a person. I consider abortion murder.
Some people like to argue about the mother having to risk her life in an unhealthy pregnancy, but these days with the advances in medicine, this is usually not a problem.
Now I will say I always think about women who were raped. However, if they went to the hospital they should have been properly taken care of after the incident, thus resulting in no pregnancy.
September 20, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Sh.tthatmymouthsays-It is your opinion that person hood begins at a heart beat, and it is a fact that heart beat begins in utero, but that does not make it a fact that a fetus is a person in the eyes of the law. A heart beat might mean "life" but not all life is protected by law. As I may have mentioned before, it is not murder to kill a plant or animal even though they are alive. The issue is personhood, and personhood cannot be legally established at a heartbeat (though by morals it is often a determining factor).
I never said a fetus was a leech, but the biological process is such that a fetus does in fact live off of the mother's body, utilizing her nutrients and her vital organs/life support systems. [I've had three children, so I'm absolutely positive of that fact.] And when you get right down to it, no one ever under any circumstances has the right to live off of another person's body. Without my consent my husband could not use my blood/body as his personal dialysis machine, my 5 year old cannot use my body to process his waste, my 19 month old and my 4 month old cannot decide to live in my uterus--they would be violating my rights as an autonomous person.
It is in that way that a fetus, even if we somehow grant that they are a person in the eyes of the law (despite obvious problems with that conclusion), would have to be granted more, unequal rights in order to be granted the right to stay in a woman's body and use it against her will. The law does NOT have the ability to grant unequal rights/concessions to anyone. [So either it's open field day on my blood and vital organs, or I get to decide who uses them and what uses they are applied for.]
Jenny-A baby may be morally a person, but legally (as I've stated before) they are not. And, for the reasons I stated in this article itself, the laws cannot be based on morals.
Also, the majority of rapes go unreported and unexamined.
To everyone-I understand the nearly overwhelming desire to legislate based on your personal system of right and wrong. It is offensive to most people to think that another person would be allowed to act in a way they find morally reprehensible. However, there is not ONE argument based entirely on fact and law that when presented would justify making abortion illegal-and a law based on "mob rule" morals will only turn against you in the end.
If you have an argument that is not morality based please present it to me-you would easily change my mind, as I am already personally pro life. If not, at least accept the fact that you are attempting to make your morals into law, and be willing to accept the eventual consequences.
September 22, 2009 at 8:00 AM
If a baby is not a person then why is it that when a pregnant woman is killed the killer is charged with 2 counts of murder and not one?
September 22, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Less than half of the states in the united states recognize a fetus as a homicide victim. The majority recognize the death of a fetus during a violent act as an illegal abortion of a fetus and/or aggravated assault upon the mother.
It should be noted however that if the cause of the death of the fetus is the mother, as is the case with voluntary abortion, no charges are filed as no crime is considered to have transpired.
For instance-there was a pregnant woman who lived in an area where she did not have access to an abortion clinic so she shot herself in the stomach. The fetus died, she lived, no charges were filed.
September 25, 2009 at 9:12 AM
You didn't answer the question. Let me pose it another way. Your liver is a part of you, yes? You have a right to destroy your liver (drugs, drinking, whatever) but nobody has a right to take your liver from you right? If you are shot and the shot destroys your liver AND kills you there is nobody that would argue that as 2 counts of murder right? A liver is a mass of cells. An organ. It is living and you can kill it but it's still just a part of your body. So why then is it not the same with a fetus if it's nothing but a mass of cells? You can't get charged with murder for killing something that isn't a person yet you claim that is what happens.
September 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM
TexasGurl-I did answer the question-they aren't charged for two murders, they are charged with one murder and the illegal abortion of a fetus and/or charged with one count of aggravated assault on the mother. You should also note that even in cases with male victim a person can be charged with multiple counts of murder for killing one person (for instance, charged one count murder in the first degree and one count murder in the second for the same death).
However, you should also note my point that if a woman kills her own fetus she is NOT charged with a crime, because it is her body and there is no legal grounds to stop her from exercising her rights to her own body-including the right to refuse others access to her internal organs and vital life systems.
September 28, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea- No you didn't answer the question, you simply stated other ways they could be charged. If they aren't charged with two counts of mureder then how do you explain this direct quote from an arrticle? "Police arrested a 42-year-old man Thursday in connection to the May killing of a 33-year-old woman and her unborn baby, police reported.
Rudolph Cano is suspected of killing Alacia Robinson and abandoning her body in a road near the 4300 block of East Magnolia Street, north of University Drive, . in east Phoenix on May 31.
Police later determined Robinson was five months pregnant when she was killed, according to a release.
Cano was booked on two counts of first-degree murder and one of sexual assault."
It says TWO counts of first-degree murder does it not? That is complelty different then one count of first degree and one count second for the same death. This person isn't being charged two ways for the same death, he is being charged for two seperate deaths.
The point of the woman killing her own fetus has nothing to do with that either. I wasn't commenting on a womans right to kill her own fetus. I was commenting on the fact that our laws contridict herself.
September 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM
As I said in my first comment "Less than half of the states in the united states recognize a fetus as a homicide victim". I did omit "usually" in my second comment ["they (usually) aren't charged for two murders, they are charged for....] and I apologize.
Some states, acting on the 10th amendment, have created legal definitions that classify the killing of a fetus by a third party to be homicide. States do have the right to create their own statute definitions, however they do NOT have the right to use those statute definitions to repeal a Constitutionally protected right (like the right to one's own body), so in all states it is legal for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy.
October 1, 2009 at 6:29 AM
You have still ignored the question and it still stands that the law is contridicting itself and being a bit hypocritical. Obviously you aren't going to actually answer the question because there is no answer except for the law decides when a law stands and when it doesn't based on who is commiting the crime.
A person being charged for 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman while abortion is legal is no different then a famous rapper getting off scott free for driving drunk simply because he is famous. And don't try to tell me that one doesn't happen because it does.
October 2, 2009 at 12:47 AM
The law is not contradicting itself. As I explained before, the states have the right to change statute definitions, but that does not change the law-and the law is that one must be born to have rights. The states do not state, in any law, in any state, anywhere that a fetus is a person or that a fetus is protected under the law by Constitutional rights. The fact that you can be charged for murdering a fetus inside of a mother has nothing to do with a fetus' rights, and everything to do with the rights of the mother (not to have her fetus killed against her will).
October 2, 2009 at 7:05 AM
You can't be charged with murdering a person if what you killed was not a person. For example, if I kill your dog I can be charged for killing your dog but not with murder because murder is killing a person. You have a right to not have your dog killed against your will but that doesn't make it murder. So, yes the law is contridicting itself by saying that in case A a fetus is a person and it is murder to kill it but in case B it is not. If I paid to have you killed (like an abortion) I would still be charged for killing you. Possibly even more so then if I had just killed you myself. However the law condridicts itself and lets a mother pay to have her own child killed.
If it was simply the mothers rights being upheld then it would not be 2 counts of murder.