I intended to reply to a comment on this post, but my response got far too long for a comment, so here you go, out in the wide-open:
On a Department of Peace and Nonviolence~
First, yes, it is idealistic, as I admitted right from the start. I think that a department such as this might get lost and seem pretty insignificant under the shadow of such an extensive national military. And it's bureaucratic, yes. I do get that.
But it's better than the status quo. Sometimes symbolism is good, and just knowing our government is willing to make strides toward turning our image around from that of a schoolyard bully could change the way things get done around the entire world.
Once upon a time civil rights was a bunch of idealistic gobbledygook as well. And hey, Jesus was an idealist, so it works for me.
On the Freedom of Choice Act~
1. If a woman is intent on terminating a pregnancy after the age of viability (except in extreme cases yada, yada, yada), there is something wrong. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but if someone has carried a baby around for five-to-nine months and finally decides to get rid of it instead of waiting a couple months and giving it up after birth, then there's something else going on in her head besides not wanting to be burdened with a child. This woman needs help, and getting rid of the "problem" is like putting a tiny little band-aid on a gaping wound.
FOCA will assure that a state's ability and right to make sure this doesn't happen is taken away.
2. FOCA will make access to abortion much quicker, much easier--allowing someone to make a HUGE snap decision they might later regret. I personally know of six women (girls, really) who have had abortions, all of whom regret it strongly, and for a couple of them it has affected their entire psychological balance. This is not some fly-by-night decision to be made.
Putting it out there as full disclosure, my personal position is that I don't think abortion should be legal as a "choice" whatsoever (again, except in extreme cases, yada, yada, yada). But if it is going to remain legal, for goodness sakes, at least let there be SOME hoops to jump through in order for a woman to make an informed and well thought-out decision.
3. Under this Act, our daughters are free to go to a clinic and have an abortion without so much as a single note from us. There can be no state restrictions put on this. The earliest pregnancy I've heard of in "real life" is at age nine. My daughter is seven. Theoretically, she could become pregnant and find a "trusted adult" to take her to have an abortion and I would never know about it. That's extreme, I realize, but a slippery slope is a dangerous thing. The fact that I would not want any daughter under my guardianship, be she nine or be she seventeen, to have an abortion aside--there are serious future health risks here! A child should not be making these health decisions without a parent.
And again, if a child feels the need to hide a pregnancy from her parents, there are bigger issues here that will never be solved with the termination of a pregnancy. That whole gaping wound thing and such.
4. This isn't really a future ramification, but rather an argument against the whole thing...you know, constitutionally, we really don't have a right to privacy anyway--the so-called "constitutional right" the Act is based on.
So there you go. I feel kind of weird getting this strong on my blog, but I'm nothing if not opinionated :-)
well said! I completely agree!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you almost 100% Kelly....except that the taking of an innocent life (in abortion, in this case) is *always* wrong, immoral, and gravely sinful. Even in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and in the rare but horrible cases of rape or incest. The innocent child did not ask to be conceived (ie, no "choice" there!) and cannot be given the death penalty for their existence, no matter how they were conceived. Society may value the life of the mother more than the unborn child's, but God does not. Both were created in His image.
ReplyDeleteI think when legislators use that "health of the mother/rape/incest" loophole, you're at a great risk for another slippery slope. Where does it end? Who decides what is "severe"?
Just my 2-3 cents'. Hope you don't mind. ;D
well, as far as i can tell, kelly, i assume you think products of rape or incest should be born, too?
ReplyDeleteblogs are an incredible thing- you can share whatever you want, and if people yell at you for your opinions and tell you to just stop talking, you can kindly direct them to stop finding your site and reading! you can say whaever you want! thought you did a great job :)
Megan
Jackie-thanks!
ReplyDeleteMegan-yes, you are correct.
Chris-I also agree with you almost 100% LOL. But in times where a fetus is not to the age of viability and continuing a pregnancy will surely result in the death of a mother, it is best to save one life rather than lose two.
I'm not all about the "health of the mother" thing because that is unfair and "health" can be stretched unimaginably, but I'm talking about the very LIFE of a woman.
Also, I believe that it is better to save some souls from being aborted rather than none, and if it takes making a law with exceptions, well, that's better than nothing.
"blogs are an incredible thing- you can share whatever you want, and if people yell at you for your opinions and tell you to just stop talking, you can kindly direct them to stop finding your site and reading"
ReplyDeleteNot sure if this was directed at me...but I wasn't yelling at Kelly or telling her to stop talking. I have known her "in real life" for several years and enjoy reading her blog.
My point was that the Church does not, as far as I know, make exceptions of any kind.
"and if it takes making a law with exceptions, well, that's better than nothing"
ReplyDeleteExactly- and state laws like this will disappear under FOCA (getting back to your original post! ;D)
I am always surprised how many Christians/Catholics/people in general have never heard of FOCA. In many ways, it is more far-reaching than Roe v. Wade. Roe legalized it, but FOCA would make abortion an inherent human right. Insane.
Since I was the one who inspired this post, I may as well chime in...
ReplyDeleteI think the Dept. of Peace thing is an "agree to disagree" issue - I understand that it's mostly a statement, but I guess I'm too much of a pragmatist to want to spend millions of dollars on it and too much of a cynic to think it would actually accomplish anything useful. If it does go through, I'd certainly be happy to be wrong about that.
I don't get your point 1 on the FOCA - according to what I've read about the act, it applies to abortions prior to fetal viability. According to what I've read, late-term abortions still could be prohibited. The act is, though, more far-reaching than I'd initially thought; thanks for pointing that out.
As for the right to privacy, it's not explicitly in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights states that it's not meant to be exhaustive (see the 9th Amendment), and the right to privacy is certainly implied in the 4th Amendment as well. I do find it odd that the "right to privacy" is the focus of abortion rights - really, the crux of the discussion is deciding when human rights attach, and the privacy issue seems secondary.
I'm glad to see your comment that you're willing to some level of compromise on the issue - I think that, as with so many things, the ultimate solution will be something in the middle. I understand the moral objection, and I don't expect Catholics to condone or support abortion, but it seems pretty obvious to me, especially after the election here in SD, that a complete ban is not going to happen, whether in the courts or through any sort of popular or legislative action. If a reasonable compromise were worked out (something like The Straight Dope's proposal, perhaps), do you think it would be possible for the "No abortion ever!" and "Abortion anytime, even in the delivery room!" sides to focus on their respective goals outside the legal system so I won't have to keep hearing about this nonstop every other November?
Good post - thanks for the in-depth response to my questions.
No, I don't think Megan was referring to your comment. I think she was referring to the fact that I was hesitant to be so blunt on my blog.
ReplyDeleteThere are many different people of many different views who read this, all of whom I respect though not necessarily agree with, and I try to not offend anyone. But when it's something as important as this, I guess if I offend someone I don't care.
I will say, though, I really am enjoying this and if talking about life issues gets some conversations going on here, well I should talk about it more often ;-)
Kelly- thank goodness, I didn't want anyone to think I was some random troll coming over to cause trouble at Travels in Cognition! :D LOL
ReplyDeleteJarid- FOCA definitely does not apply just to pre-viability abortion.
FOCA provides that “[i]t is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.” (Americans United for Life) AUL also points out that " FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability."
Check out Americans United for Life -http://www.aul.org/FOCA;
Priests for Life
FightFOCA.org.
We know life begins at conception- anyone that has taken BIO 101 knows that. It is science. And that life is certainly human- if not, then what else would it be? The idea of people in Colrado voting on "when life begins" (personhood) or governments telling us when a baby is viable is absurd. It's a human being. Some people want to pretend that it isn't so they can justify killing it. I think it's that simple.
I do agree that a ban on some abortions (as is the case in some states now) is better than no ban at all, but if we throw our hands up and say "a complete ban is never going to happen" then pro-life is doomed. You are right- the change is not going to be through the law or the courts- it has to be a change in the hearts and consciences of America. That takes an awful lot of prayer. As long as people still think abortion is an answer to a problem, it will still exist (legally or illegally). We have to someday get to a point where people realize that killing the baby not the answer.
Like I said- an awful lot of prayer.
(disclaimer- I am in the "No abortion ever" camp, in case that wasn't obvious! ;D )
Amen to pro life!How anyone can kill there baby is beyond me. Women in all cases but rape have the right to choose. They can choose to have sex or not to have sex. If you choose the first option then you have made your choice and that is to have a baby if you get pregnant!
ReplyDelete