Posted by Max Barron on December 31, 2008
A common argument that comes up when discussing abortion is the equivocation of the murder involved in an abortion and the murder involved in dispensation of the death penalty. Personally, I find the two to be completely different. Many conservatives are pro-choice and pro-death penalty. The reverse is also true. Many more conservatives are pro-life and pro-death penalty, this is the category I belong to. If you are like me and have many socially liberal friends, I’m certain that you have debated these topics numerous times. You have also probably heard the line “How can you say that abortion is murder when you are willing to murder an actual human being?” Or you’ve heard something similar. For the record, let me say, that babies are human beings. I stand affirmed that an unborn child and a sentenced criminal are not the same.
The differences between the two couldn’t be more obvious.
- Guilt: Babies are inherently innocent. A criminal sentenced to death is not.
- Choice: The criminal made a choice that resulted in their death sentence. An unborn child CANNOT make any choices.
- Societal benefit: Babies are always wanted and adoption is a great option for those who can not commit to raising a child. Criminals are not wanted. Life sentences and parole strain the society that they harmed even more than their crimes did.
- Leverage: In the case of criminals, the death penalty is the greatest tool that a prosecutor has to compel confessions and plea agreements. In the case of an unborn child, the only thing being leveraged is motherhood vs. convenience.
There are a great many arguments to be made against abortion and in favor of the death penalty. Many people may not agree with either the pro-life or pro-death penalty stances. However, one thing is an absolute certainty. No matter how it is worded the judicious use of the death penalty is not even remotely similar to the act of an abortion.
***Once again, a very special thanks to Anna Tarkov for her editing, patience, and support. You’re a great help, Anna!***
Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: abortion, baby, choice, criminals, death penalty, guilt, innocence | 3 Comments »
Posted by Max Barron on December 30, 2008
An interesting question was posed yesterday on Twitter. “Should one’s abortion stance be used as a litmus test for conservative politicians?” PinkElephantPundit did a good job of answering that particular part so I won’t delve into it too much. What spawned from that was the inevitable “Isn’t it important enough to overturn Roe Vs Wade?” In the short of it, no it isn’t. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it isn’t important at all because it simply won’t happen. Roe is fait accompli. I wish that I could turn back time and somehow we could have made it a state issue as opposed to federal. The damage is done though. As the current bench stands there is a 7-2 split on overturning Roe. Seven will uphold it. We can see this because of the recent 5-4 partial-birth abortion ruling which banned the practice. However, only 2 justices (Scalia and Thomas) signed an opinion that in essence stated that the SCOTUS should have never heard Roe on the grounds of constitutionality. No others signed it. This means that only two justices are in favor of overturning. You can count the four dissenters as in favor of upholding Roe. Out of the remaining three justices (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts) Alito is the only one that I think can be readily flipped to overturn Roe. Kennedy is not likely at all and I am not sure about Roberts. Even if we managed to flip Alito and Roberts, we get a 4-5 vote in favor of upholding. Essentially, in order to get Roe overturned we need to flip no less than three justices. Four of which are in favor of partial-birth abortions… where do you think they stand on Roe? In short, ‘ain’t gonna happen.’
Please also consider the fact that Barack Obama, who supports judicial activism, will likely get to appoint at least two seats with the possibility of a third. We have a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat President. Be honest with yourself. Do you really think that the same Democrats that support judicial litmus testing are going to let a couple of pro-lifers get past them? SCOTUS appointments are for life so the next President may get one or two (at most) appointments. It simply won’t be enough to shift the balance.
Looking for a President to overturn Roe would be like searching the depths of the ocean for dry land. Roe is a political hot potato that, frankly, benefits politicians to have on the books (even the pro-life candidates as it gives them a platform). No, the solution to the abortion problem does not lie in the law. The laws of supply and demand tell us this. Even if it were illegal, if there is a demand, someone will supply. We would have black-market abortions going on. The real solution to this problem lies not in the courts but with you and me. It lies in parenting, churches and social structures. If we teach our children the value of life, morals and principles they won’t need or want an abortion. If we teach our children abstinence or, at the very least, protected sex, then they won’t need or want an abortion. There is already great progress by many different pro-life organizations to educate the young. Statistics are showing that it is starting to work. Supply and demand – if there is no demand then there will be no supply. Roe itself will become pointless and then, and only then, will it be overturned.
***Special Thanks to Anna Tarkov for her help in editing. She didn’t have time to red ink all of my errors but she saved me from many.***
Posted in Politics | Tagged: abortion, planned parenthood, pro life, Roe, roe v wade, wade | 1 Comment »