Thursday, August 21, 2008

Abortion and Conservatives...

I’ve been on vacation the last week, in Virginia Beach...and it’s been great! I’m coming home Saturday (the 23rd)....DRATS!
I LOVE it here.

At any rate, with the likes of Joe Lieberman (political suicide) and Tom Ridge (a political gamble at best), on the short list of potential McCain VP's, and with both being pro-abortion (euphemistically called pro-choice) and at least one, Lieberman, being an extreme social and economic left-winger, now seems as good a time as any to look at the issue of abortion and Conservatism.

Abortion has become a vital issue in the Republican Party in general and among Conservatives in particular because of the heavy religious influence in Conservative politics.

To some secularists, that’s a bad thing.

To me, it’s relatively neutral.

For better or worse, religion, specifically Christianity and Judaism have forged the basis for our current Western morality.

One of the central tenets of both religions is the “sanctity of life.” That is why devout Christians and Jews tend to oppose both capital punishment and abortion, along with most wars.

I am not religious and I do NOT accept the “sanctity of ALL life,” so I DO support most wars, even wars for profit, capital punishment and to some extent abortion on demand.

Contrary to popular belief, there’s nothing all that complicated about the abortion issue – let’s call it what it is, abortion, not “choice” or “life.”

There are only two reasons for an abortion – health or medical reasons and convenience.

Not being able to afford another child is CONVENIENCE.

Since less than 5% of all abortions are for health reasons, the bottom-line is that those who support abortion are, in the vast majority of cases, supporting the convenience of an existing person over the chance to live of another, yet to be born.

Of that there is no doubt, just as there really is no doubt that “LIFE begins at conception.” The developing fetus is indeed a LIVING ORGANISM.

So, given that, how can I, as a Conservative, accept the right to abortion?

Simply put, I accept it precisely because I DON’T accept the sanctity of all life. It’s just that I’m honest about it and most others aren’t. Christians and Jews, who claim to oppose abortion on religious grounds, while supporting capital punishment demonstrate that they don’t accept the sanctity of all life either. I KNOW, at least they’re accepting the sanctity of “innocent life” and not that of those guilty of heinous crimes. Certainly an argument CAN be made for that viewpoint.

It is harder to make an argument in favor of abortion ad against capital punishment, as most leftists do, because THAT, is an insipid stance, completely devoid of any logic.

Since I don’t accept the sanctity of all life, I’ve been able to forge an internal compromise that works for me. I support first trimester abortion (“abortion on demand” for the first twelve weeks) and oppose it thereafter, on the grounds that, at that point, the fetus, in many, many cases, CAN live outside the womb.

It’s an arbitrary compromise, but it’s one that I’m comfortable with, as I’ve always believed that not wanting a child makes that person an unfit parent, at least at that point. I can certainly understand where others may not be OK with that compromise. Still, polls show that the vast majority of American ARE! In almost all polls, some 63% of Americans SUPPORT first trimester abortion, while less than 30% support third trimester or “partial birth” abortion.

When looking at a political candidate, it’s vital to understand his/her reasons for coming to their views. How does Tom Ridge, Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman, among others, come to conclude that convenience supersedes life concerns?

If their reasoning doesn’t follow something along the lines of logic I’ve just outlined, either they’re lying, or worse, they’re too dumb to understand an issue that isn’t all that complicated.

Just one more thing to think about as the 2008 Election nears.


Wayne said...

I have linked to your post from Obama History on Abortion and Infanticide

Dan O. said...

I like the way you said that, JMK. It's exactly how I've felt but have never quite put into words.

I don't know why so much emphasis is put on abortion as a political issue. To me it's a medical and/or moral issue and should be made behind closed doors with the advice of a medical professional.

JMK said...

It SHOULD be Dan O, but it's been used as a political issue by both Right and Left.

I agree with abortion on demand through the first trimester, on the grounds that "an unwilling parent, is an unfit parent," and every child deserves better than that.

I oppose late term abortions because when thew child can survive outside the womb, as premies as young as four months have, that's way too close to infanticide for me.

I know there are those who'll say, "ANY abortion AFTER conception is infanticide," and those who'd claim that ANY restriction on abortion up to delivery is denying a woman control over her own body, BUT in BOTH cases I draw the line at the point at which a child can survive outside the womb.

I suppose that I'm pragmatic up to a point.

JMK said...

GREAT site Wayne!

I've bookmarked it and will blogroll it ASAP.

And thatnks for the link.

Don said...

I knew that once I clicked on the comment section I would see something regarding Obama's stance on Infanticide, to which I definitely do not agree with.

At the same time I do not believe in the death penalty, but I do believe in abortion. If a mother doesn't want to give birth to a child then who am I to say what she can and cannot do with her child?

I think you make a great point concerning how there are many people who actually do not understand how simple an issue it really is...

I see you took a vacation. Welcome back, I treated myself to somewhat of an one-week vacation.

Rachel said...

I hope you're enjoying my fine state, JMK. Have you seen our anti-swearing signs, yet? They're the ones with the &*!@# notes with a ban sign over them. Not that it makes a difference...

Anyhoo, I read a wonderful, realistic article about abortion and politics in the US. It basically argued that politicians should not bother with bringing up the subjuect, since if Roe v Wade were overturned, the decision to have abortions returns to the states. Therefore, it is silly to placate the pro or anti- abortionists. Good article, but the author sounds like he's never been enudated with scare mail from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW (I'm pro-choice, and even I think my side is paranoid)

JMK said...

Hi Don, and it's good to be back, even though I love Virginia Beach and a number of areas down South - the Raleigh-Durham triangle, the Atlanta Metro area, Savannah, Charleston and the Charlotte area as well. I hope you enjoyed your vacation as well.

At any rate, on abortion, it seems that the zealots on both sides eschew any form of pragmatism, which is what I advocate.

"Pro-lifers" (anti-abortion zealots) oppose pragmatism on the grounds that it amounts to "making a deal they can't accept," as they see all abortion as "infanticide," and "pro-choicers" (pro-abortion zealots) believe in "choice" up to the time of delivery.

I merely accept the pragmatic view that once a fully formed fetus, or child can survive outside the womb, THAT is undeniably infanticide and that individual life trumps the carrier's mere "convenience."

Ironically enough, I also support the death penalty, in fact, I don't like the current painless form (lethal injection) of Capital Punishment at all. I firmly believe that people who put others to death and/or commit other heinous crimes SHOULD be put to death themselves with maximimal suffering. In that regard, I oppose hanging and beheading for much the same reason. I'd honestly prefer to see those guilty of death penalty crimes beaten to death or set an offering of solace to the victim's family.

I can, however, see where many could disagree with my stance on that, although I'm also convinced that such people are morally and ethically wrong in their viewpoints.

You're a reasonable guy, Don, so let me ask you this, did you oppose the death penalty for the three guys who dragged James Byrd to death, chained to their pick-up truck?

I didn't.

And I understand that two of them had been raped in prison by black inmates. And I fully understand the hatred that that would almost certainly engender and IF they'd slaughtered the actual offending parties, once those thugs got out of prison, I'd not only support their NON-conviction, but I'd actually have donated to such a person's defense, on the grounds of "retro-active self-defense."

If you DID oppose the death penalty for those three guys, then apparently you supported it on the grounds of "the sanctity of life."

If that's indeed the case, than how can you not oppose abortions AFTER that point at which a fully formed fetus/child can survive outside the womb?

My support for first trimester abortion is based on the viewpoint that you espouse right here - that an unwilling parent is, at that point, an "unfit parent," but AFTER that child can survive outside the womb, you'd think most reasonable people would agree that that is an independent life, worthy of the respect accorded any other life.

Wouldn't you?

JMK said...

Hi Rachel!

I do like Virginia very much!

We took some time to check out historic Jamestowne (saw Colonial Williamsburg the previous two years) and the Nauticus museum in Norfolk, along with the USS Wisconsin that's set there.

As to Roe vs Wade, you're 100% right, in that all that overturning Roe would do would be to return the issue back to the states and it's almost certain that at least first trimester abortions would be protected in almost all fifty states, with Utah and Mississippi being the two most likely states to pass more severe restrictions.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of politicians NOT bringing up the abortion issue, no matter what their stand.

Polls do show that appx. two-thirds of Americans support first trimester abortion on demand, while another two-thirds oppose late term abortions. I think it's advisable for both politicians and commentators to express their views and make their case on this issue, so long as they do so honestly...and not change one's view every two years the way Mitt Romney among others has done.

I think it's "silly to placate the pro or anti- abortionists," or ANYONE you don't agree with, but pro-abortion pols SHOULD make their stance known, as should those opposed.

conservative brother said...

It's above my pay rate jmk. What exactly is my pay rate again? lol

JMK said...

"JMK. Have you seen our anti-swearing signs, yet? They're the ones with the &*!@# notes with a ban sign over them. Not that it makes a difference..." (Rachel)

I missed those!

I can see where such a thing wouldn't work. In fact, it only serves to make getting away with the thing they seek to cut down seem "cool," at least to kids.

Incentives work best. BOTH positive and negative reinforcements work.

While I wouldn't pay to stop swearing, I would support some form of public humiliation, then again, I support caning (public whippings) for non-violent felonies, like defacing public property and various drug offenses too.

I commend Virginia for the effort, I give them an A for that, but I give them a D for implementation.

You know why seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws are obeyed?

NOT because of any signs, but because of the negative reinforcement (fines) that accompany being caught doing those things.

I can't imagine law enforcement being as supportive of becoming the "potty-mouth police."

I mean what do you do, after slamming your thumb with a hammer in front of a cop, hand him a fifty and scream, "Scumbag motherf*cker!"

To which he replies, what, "Sir, that's two swear words, so that'll be $100"???

I can see the logistical impediments all too clearly.

JMK said...

"It's above my pay rate jmk. What exactly is my pay rate again?" (Tyrone)

That does size up the argument AGAINST pragmatism pretty well, Tyrone.

The thing is, I can honestly see both sides of most issues and I can admit that often the zealots on both sides can overlook some obvious rightly-held principles on the other.

For instance, I can understand why some people oppose Capital Punishment, on the grounds that an innocent man CAN be convicted wrongfully, via faulty eye-witness testimony, damning circumstantial evidence, etc.

BUT, what that charge seems to argue in favor of isn't the eradication of Capital Punishment, but a higher standard for that penalty.

I'd gladly accept a standard that required DNA evidence proving that person guilty of that heinous crime BEFORE Capital Punishment can be administered.

Of course, that would require the elimination of "the right" to refuse to submit to DNA testing on the part of suspects.

I'm good with that too.

Likewise, on abortion, I understand and agree with the idea that an unwilling parent is also an UNFIT parent and no child deserves that, so I can accept first trimester abortion on the grounds that the fetus is not yet a "fully formed human."

I know that that's too much of a compromise for those committed to the view that "life begins at conception," but for me, it's a pragmatic compromise that seems to work, as arbitrary as it may be.

What I don't understand is those who oppose Capital Punishment on the grounds of "the sanctity of all life," while NOT acknowledging that5 same sanctity when a fetus IS fully formed and can survive outside the womb, as in late (second and third trimester) abortions.

I can understand and even accept some stretching of logic, but I cannot understand breaking with it.

American Ideas Click Here!