Don't call me pro-life!

I've sat down at my computer many, many times before to write this post but somehow it has never come to fruition... which is perhaps quite fitting for the topic of abortion. But now it is less than a week before one of the "biggest" elections of a generation so I figure I better get on the ball, although I should make it clear that abortion is not an election-year issue for me. It is a 365-days-a-year issue for me in that probably not a day goes by that I don't somehow read about it, think about it, or hopefully do something that in some small way chips away at the foundation of Roe v. Wade (RvW). I know you guys are not a talkative bunch so I'm probably not going to touch off a comment riot here... though I relish the thought! I think it would be inexplicably awesome if we could have a genuine discussion here on the topic. (Not in hopes of changing my mind--you won't!-- but rather I'd love to figure out what is at the root of our society's apathy.) And certainly I wish I had the resources to fashion an eloquent discourse on the topic but The NY Times this ain't... it's a local-yocal blog posted on blogger. So for now, if you're remotely interested (pollsters would say you're not) you can take a trip inside my brain and read my thoughts regarding the life-and-death (with an emphasis on death) subject that is abortion.

Why does abortion matter to you and furthermore, why it should matter to me, even though it is an election year?
Abortion has hijacked the political process. That should bother any tax-paying US citizen because it means that instead of running our country as proficiently as possible, politicians spend a great deal of their time pandering to whatever special interest group put them in power on an issue that should be a nonissue. There are a significant amount of people like me who might actually consider voting more "progressive" on some of the more complex and extremely vital issues like health care, education, or even energy policy if it wasn't for the abortion issue. But you can forget me ever, and I mean ever, casting a vote for a Democrat in its current state of affairs. The DNC might as well be called the D&C as far as I'm concerned because they have clearly cast their lots with radical pro-abortionists with the likes of their leadership right now, most definitely starting at the top with Barack Obama (who is more pro-choice than NARAL just FYI.) Many Republicans don't even realize there is a problem with our current healthcare system and/or are in bed with the insurance companies as well as the energy magnates while having no concern whatsoever for "the little guy." But at least they would not appoint a liberal judiciary activist (to a lifetime appointment no less!) who view the Declaration of Independence that was signed by our country's founders as nothing more than a mere historical artifact ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") So what if you happen to be a gun-totin' fundamentalist right-wing Republican born-n-bred who doesn't really agree with someone like me on the likes of health care reform, etc? What does it matter to you then? Well, in the words of the illustrious Janet Jackson, why don't you try asking the Republicans "what have you done for me lately?" Starting with the Republican Revolution of 1994 and followed by nearly 8 years of W's presidency, are we any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade? The answer is unanimously no! For those of you who haven't caught on yet, let me catch you up to speed. The Republican party as a whole (and speaking in terms of a general political machine, not individuals) has no real interest in overturning RvW and thus negating its main bargaining chip with conservative voters. Right now RvW gives them power--tons of it--come every election cycle and they don't seem to have any desire to give that up. They've had the opportunity to make real inroads over the past decade or so yet they have not. Sure, there are in fact plenty of Republicans who would actually do something if given the chance (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul to name a few) but "the machine" usually keeps them down. Slowly but surely the religious right is catching on, thus the lackluster enthusiasm for John McCain this go 'round and an emergence of third-party voting. The irony? John McCain was voting pro-life when that didn't necessarily get you any bonus points and meanwhile his opponent is more pro-choice than NARAL (can't emphasize that enough!) That Satan is one crafty little booger... too bad he doesn't seem to understand he's already been defeated. So, to that end, believe me when I say that the abortion issue most definitely monkeys with everything from education to tax reform to national security and so on. It permeates the entire political process and in doing so, the right people for the job are not always the ones elected (no pun intended.)

But you would actually vote against someone just because of his stance on abortion?
To quote Sarah Palin, "You betcha!" Why? Because I cannot personally meet, greet, and assess each and every political candidate who will represent me in Congress as well as The White House so I just have to go with who I feel has the best character and overall ability to make good decisions. So if they think abortion is both right as well as a constitutional right, then boy oh boy did they screw the pooch. Why should I trust them to make decisions about anything, let alone war? I find it ironic that liberal-leaning voters get up in arms about alleged mass bombings of innocent civilians killing, um, dozens at a time while supporting the right to abortion on demand, which claims over 1 million lives a year in our country. And if you do the math, after 35 years we're talking numbers in a massive genocide range. Try to wrap your brain around that number and let it sink in.

So why do we let a wad of tissue in a woman's body dictate our entire political process, thus shaping our collective national policy?
Because it's precisely not a wad of tissue, that's why. Obviously, I'm a follower of Jesus first and foremost. I would never, never, NEVER want to deny such (too wise to just say "never" just read the story of Peter in the Bible!) but I do believe that the issue of abortion can and should be settled outside of the spiritual-religious context. In other words, I believe there is an abundant amount of scientific evidence to back an outlaw of abortion. (Sidenote: Roe v. Wade is not based on any sort of scientific finding whatsoever... it was legally founded on a flawed judgment of "right to privacy." In other words, the Supreme Court ruled the government doesn't have a right to view medical records to know what's going on. Even the Supreme Court in 1973--before routine ultrasound--could not have made a sound ruling based on scientific data... not that the right to privacy isn't inherently flawed but anyway.) To illustrate: While watching ER or any other medi-drama... what's the main/only determination of time of death? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with a flatline on a monitor. In other words, if the heart stops beating and cannot be restarted then they make the pronouncement (time of death...) So if that's universally the standard for death, then why isn't the converse true as the standard for life? In other words, fetuses have heartbeats. They are first detectable at 6 weeks' gestation/fetal age of 4 weeks, which is probably before a majority of abortion-minded women would even know they are pregnant as they would have only skipped one period by approximately two weeks... MDs feel free to chime in if my calculations are wrong!) I saw my child's heartbeat 8 weeks into my own pregnancy so don't think this is some work of science fiction. I suspect the heartbeat detection timeframe will only get earlier as technology increases. And do you realize that there is, for the most part, very little legislation that can be enforced regarding the timeframe on performing legal abortions? When I open my phonebook, I see that an abortion provider in my nearby neighboring state offers abortions on demand (which means they provide them just because you want one) up to 24 weeks?!?! Are you freakin' (please note that by saying freakin' I am only trying hard to not ruin my witness because my human urge is to say something else while imagining myself literally smashing my fists into Margaret Sanger's corpse) kiddin' me?!?!? My youngest son had neighbors in the NICU less than 24 weeks' gestation! Contrary to the majority's belief, they were very much viable! Actually, the cusp of viability is even earlier than 24 weeks so its very hard to make a rational argument that unchecked abortion-on-demand is not murder to its fullest extent. Speaking of fullest extent, you do realize that there are things like partial-birth abortion and the "Born Alive Act" that actually have to be voted on in our political arena?! These things should not even be open for debate... it's infanticide. Plain and simple. And be sure you check out Barack Obama's voting record on such issues. (Again, more pro-choice than NARAL.) I could go on and on if I had the time (and would if so challenged) with all the scientific evidence that exposes abortion for what is (say it with me: infanticide!) but there's still more that makes abortion so very, very reprehensible!

But it's a woman's body... who are you to tell her what to do with it?
This to me is probably the most puzzling argument of all. Even if you wanted to concede it's a wad of tissue (it's not) then you cannot deny that upon pathological investigation, said "wad" would prove to be 50% someone else's DNA. As it stands right now, the provider of that DNA has no legal standing to block an abortion. I hope someday that legal precedent will change (I believe this to be a good route for up-ending RvW) but for now that's what my sons and your sons have to work with and they would be wise to always remember that. So we've established that technically the "uterine contents" are not in fact your DNA alone. Sure, it inhabits your body but I'm pretty sure there would be major legal ramifications to a surrogate mother deciding to abort her "uterine contents." The same protection should be given to any pregnancy. And if that upsets all the feminists out there, then take up the issue with whatever force you believed created us (try starting with those stick-on plastic fish with feet attached to your bumper maybe?) because the state of pregnancy is unique and unparalleled in our world. There can be no real legal precedent because there is no other situation like being pregnant upon which to build your case. You most definitely have a body that is your own but while pregnant, it temporarily houses something that is most definitely not solely your own. Better luck (and legal argument!) with cloning.

Speaking of feminists, isn't it completely sexist to want to outlaw abortion. Aren't women entitled to reproductive freedom?
We're not talking about birth control here. It's true that dead ole Margaret Sanger first started her fight for birth control and in some ways, that was a valid fight. She believed in women having control over how many kids they could produce and thus founded American Birth Control League. But let's be honest, in 2008 no one is talking about restricting access to birth control (I'd even be in favor of forcing insurance companies to cover the costs of birth control since they cover Viagra... plus, it's good business sense for them!) In fact, its very reasonable to argue that the proliferation of birth control should nullify the need for abortion. Why can't Planned Parenthood (the little sister of Sanger's American Birth Control League) be content with handing out free birth control at their clinics? I for one will leave them alone so long as my tax dollars don't contribute and they don't come into public institutions with their agenda. Abortion-on-demand is about money first (ever wonder why abortion-alternative pregnancy centers are free yet Planned Parenthood clinics charge for everything?!?!) and then complete lack of responsibility second. (Use something or don't use something... for 300 measily bucks, there's always a safety net, right?) And choice... what, maybe you just want to be able to keep trying until you have that little boy without redundant little girls, right? That's your choice here in America... land of the free and home of the unborn dead. Women of America, wake up! 50% (give or take a percentage point) of the babies aborted are female. That doesn't scream "sisterhood!" to me. This has nothing to do with your value as a woman. If anything, it undercuts it. Abortion has nothing to do with your right to vote, drive a car, hold a job for equal pay, or anything else that in the past may have been unduly denied. Don't fall for what all the stupid (and I do mean stupid...as well as clinically insane) celebrities have to say on the subject. They never, ever offer to explain how rights to an abortion relates to your inalienable rights as a US citizen. Maybe they mention something about a back alley if Roe v. Wade is overturned but who forces you into the back alley? The government? Surely you don't believe that! The truth is, NO ONE can force you into a back alley. No one forces your daughters or sisters into a back alley. In fact, they have the right to go to the police and ask for protection against such measures. And overturning Roe v. Wade means many more of our future daughters and sisters (and brothers, equally important!) will be born and possibly change the world for the better.

But come on, Steph... what about those women who are raped?
Glad you asked. First of all, let me be clear that I believe women are in fact raped on a daily basis. I believe that within the limits of my own small city there are probably some young girls being raped at home. Just statistically speaking. And I'm sure know at least one person that has been raped, probably more. Rape is a crime and those it's perpetrated upon are most definitely victims. I cannot sympathize enough with them. And my God, the sin of rape makes for a very very complex issue when pregnancy is involved! But let's take a pragmatic rather than emotional approach. How many pregnancies do you believe are really the result of rape? Again, with the proliferation of birth control, I have to believe that rate is down and I believe it was a relatively small percentage to begin with (though let me again be clear that I think just one is one too many.) However, knowing that some pregnancies are in fact very much the result of a real rape crime, there is some actual value to the resulting pregnancy (not withstanding the human life) as obviously the resulting baby and their respective DNA would make for an excellent exhibit A in the courtroom. A pregnancy also forces action out of the victim when perhaps the first instinct might be to attempt to "shower away" the situation. Believe me, I'm all about action on the victim's part. A pregnancy makes the crime real in a very tangible, undeniable way. Why does that have to be a bad thing? Nothing would make me happier than to see a man get put away for the rest of his life because he got his 10-year-old daughter pregnant and there's no way to deny it when a pregnancy proves it. Way too many times it is the perpetrator himself that drives the victim to the abortion clinic. No harm, no foul ring a bell? And don't think it doesn't happen. If there was no easy access to abortion then what happens... maybe something beneficial for the victim? (I fully realize that in many cases the perp would just kill his victims, seeing as homicide is already a leading cause of maternal death but this shouldn't deter us from doing the right thing.)

But what would you do... force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her own rights being violated?
If I were King of the World, in what would be my only compromise on this issue, I think perhaps I could live with myself if I permitted legal abortions on rape victims with very clear, strictly enforced parameters. First, all abortions would be performed within the first trimester after a legit effort to inform the victim of all pertinent medical facts as well as mandatory ultrasound with fetal anesthesia administered. Second and most importantly, all procedures would be performed only after a police report/formal statement had been filed by the victim. That way, if she is lying to the police just to obtain the abortion, she's open to prosecution for filing a false report. Additionally, if you ever charge someone for the rape, there should be a statute that makes a pregnancy resulting from a rape an aggravating circumstance, one that could perhaps render the death penalty (I would not be opposed to that in the least.) Remember, the police cannot catch a criminal if they don't know a crime has occurred.

The death penalty?!?! Are you telling me you're in favor of a death penalty but you consider yourself pro-life?
How on earth the issue of abortion ever got tied up with serial raping-and-murdering cretins remains a mystery to me. I suppose you could trace it to the Catholic church's stance on the issues but it seems as though plenty of non-Catholics get confused by the issue too. Are they actually equating an innocent human life that has yet to be born to that of these real-life monsters? Because it sure seems so when you make this argument. I hear/read people saying "you can't have it both ways" but actually I don't see why not. Surely they are aware that people on death row have gotten at least one trial by their peers in which they were presumed innocent until proven guilty and I imagine they've also had an automatic appeal (probably numerous appeals), aren't they? Where's the unborn child's due process? To me it's apples and oranges (more like stuffed animals and sub-machine guns or whatever else is wildly unrelated in any way!)

So, in the past you voted Republican a majority of the time but you want the government to tell people what to do?
In a word, yes. But in several words, I never said I was for small government by any means as I do believe in the stupidity of people. People are sheep (I learned that from The Bible) and I believe that in cases of life and death but specifically when it involves a minor, then yes, the government should ensure that people do the right thing. Let's see... how do you know you're in a state without a helmet law? People go whizzing past you at 80 mph on their motorcycle without a helmet! (I like to kid that New Hampshire's state motto should be "Live free and die!") That is stupidity on a grand scale yet it's obvious that people, when given the choice, will make the wrong choice on these sort of decisions! Now not wearing a helmet hurts no one but yourself (well, I'm sure it traumatizes those EMTs who have to scrape their brains off the asphalt) but ultimately it's the non-helmet-wearer that pays the price. But what about carseats? We as a people deem it necessary to enact carseat laws to protect children who cannot physically make the choice to do the right thing, don't we? I'd say it's similar to being born... what physical way can a baby assert their choice in the matter? Don't we also protect our children from pedophiles and polygamists, even though some apparently evil people view those acts as morally acceptable? In summary, if it effects just you (like, let's say, maybe a physician-assisted suicide in an adult?) then rock on.*

*Although I feel you should know this physical world is not the end.

Well, you sure sound pro-life to me... what gives? And what are you personally doing to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
For the record, I consider myself anti-abortion (and not pro-life just because of the whole confusion on the death penalty) and vote accordingly. It's not just the presidential race that's important... congressional representation is vital as well as "pro-life" state representation because there's always a possibility that the whole issue will be kicked back to the states to decide individually. So in my book, it's always important to vote based on this issue. And besides just giving way to the occasional blog rant or real life in-yo-face confrontation, I actually support the local crisis pregnancy center that focuses on the real needs of those facing an unplanned pregnancy. We give of both our time and money. This particular center offers a medical clinic as well as parenting classes and a clothes closet that provides all sorts of things that WIC does not. It also offers emotional support for those who have chosen abortion and offers STD testing for those with a negative pregnancy test. As an organization, it focuses on much more than just the unborn child with an emphasis on the mother and all those involved in the situation. I fully 100% believe in those folks' worth as a person (and child of God) too. And if I had the power (I currently do not), I would make the adoption process so much easier. I would offer tax credits, incentives, whatever necessary to make the process more affordable and less daunting. There's no reason to not hook up families who desperately want children with women/families who cannot provide for theirs. It should not cost 5 figures to adopt a child! And while it shouldn't be easy per se, there should not be so much red tape--duh!

In the meantime and on a very real, personal level... please know that Plumberboy and I stand ready and willing to take care of any child that any one of you readers would otherwise dispose of.

PS: It's almost time for me to pick up my son (I suppose someone formerly known as a "wad of tissue" that happened to inhabite my uterus) from school so I can't cover any more topics now. As always, comments are open and you are more than welcome to challenge me on anything I discussed as well as anything you would like to see me discuss. But whatever you do, please don't try to pass as disinterested party because you know that's never true on this topic.