Pro-abortion groups couch their position as nothing more than a health
issue
for the woman. It's her body, so it's her choice.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion. I cannot convince

that it is not murder, and I worry that it has long term emotional
consequences for the woman, and perhaps even the man.

I also cannot
reconcile the dilemma that arises from the absurd proposition that if a

naturally emerges from a woman we consider it a precious life with full
adult rights, but if we want to abort it 5 minutes before that natural

it is no big deal.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion. I cannot convince
myself
that it is not murder, and I worry that it has long term emotional
consequences for the woman, and perhaps even the man. I also cannot
reconcile the dilemma that arises from the absurd proposition that if a
baby
naturally emerges from a woman we consider it a precious life with full
adult rights, but if we want to abort it 5 minutes before that natural
birth
it is no big deal. Since we live in a world chock full of birth control
information, and since two supposed adults have to enter into a conscious
and voluntary act to create the preconditions for abortion, it just seems
as
if there should be little need for the procedure, regardless of its moral
implications. This is not slipping on a bar of soap, or catching a cold.
To
me, third trimester abortions are especially abhorrent, and public funding
of abortion forces citizens to pay for what they may consider to be
murder.
In the political arena, I think that Steve Forbes makes sense when he
talks
about changing the culture before even thinking about changing the laws.

Pro-abortion groups couch their position as nothing more than a health
issue
for the woman. It's her body, so it's her choice. I find this argument to
be
flawed. I would agree that if it were her body, it would indeed be her
choice. But is it her body? Do we want to consider the second body, the
fetus, to be indistinguishable from the woman's spleen or leg? Is that all
it is, a growth - sometimes desired and sometimes undesired? If we were in
court, we would demand that the woman provide proof of ownership in order
for the fetus to be considered hers to do with as she pleases. How would
she
provide that proof? I can think of no better test than a DNA test. If
conducted, we would find that DNA of the fetus is not an exact copy of the
mother's. It is a blend of the mother and the father. A new and unique
creation. The ownership test fails, it is not simply her body. It is not
simply her choice.

The pro-abortion mindset also contains self-deception. They suggest that
the
woman's choice is whether to have the child or not. That is not the truth.
Once a woman is pregnant, she has no choice but to host a child. The only
choice is whether or not to kill it. It is not yes or no, it is dead or
alive.

In the end, one group of people believes that abortion is murder. Murder
has
been, and should be, a crime that demands justice. Another group of people
see abortion as a personal choice that a woman makes about her own body, a
choice that might keep her from a lifetime burden. Again, I have no new or
better words to add to the statement of the issue. Others do that much
better than I ever will.

But I do want to point out that so long as we remain so divided on such a
fundamental issue, our society and culture will destroy itself with the
violent debate that arises from the conflict. Both sides believe that they
are absolutely and morally right. It's even worse than that. Both sides
believe that the other side is absolutely and morally wrong. I believe
that
in the case of issues that so sharply divide the country we should let
individual states determine their own positions. In some sense, this is
the
philosophy embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or
to the people.

This amendment is perhaps the most abused amendment in the Constitution.
Every time the federal government gets involved in any issue which does
not,
out of absolute necessity, cross state boundaries, this amendment is
violated. It creates another brick in the wall of socialism, with its
central control and bureaucracy. More one-size-fits-all thinking.

If we allowed the states to regulate abortion, we would find that the more
liberal states would immediately declare it a basic right, and probably
enact state-sponsored funding. The more conservative states would
immediately declare it murder. States divided on the issue would continue
to
struggle. While not a perfect solution, I do believe that it would create
a
better environment for living with the problem, and possibly even
eventually
resolving it.

The person who is violently against abortion could move to a state where
it
is murder. That would hopefully reduce their anger at what goes on around
them. After all, we will never have the power to deny or allow abortion on
a
global basis, so the fact that there are limits to the law is something
that
must always be lived with. That's true for all issues so long as you
believe
in the concept of sovereign nations. But, at least this act of murder will
not be allowed where they live. On the other hand, those who violently
promote abortion can move to a state where they have the total support of
the law. Over time, people still deciding the issue can observe the
consequences of each perspective. That could help settle the issue for
them.
The point is, we have 50 states. They are political entities. We are
foolish
for not allowing states more freedom to follow the wishes of their
citizens.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged
debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the
entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion.

that it is not murder, and I worry that it has long term emotional
consequences for the woman, and perhaps even the man.

reconcile the dilemma that arises from the absurd proposition that if a
baby
naturally emerges from a woman we consider it a precious life with full
adult rights, but if we want to abort it 5 minutes before that natural
birth
it is no big deal.

information, and since two supposed adults have to enter into a conscious
and voluntary act to create the preconditions for abortion, it just seems
as
if there should be little need for the procedure, regardless of its moral
implications.

This is not slipping on a bar of soap, or catching a cold.

me, third trimester abortions are especially abhorrent, and public funding
of abortion forces citizens to pay for what they may consider to be
murder.

In the political arena, I think that Steve Forbes makes sense when he
talks
about changing the culture before even thinking about changing the laws.

Pro-abortion groups couch their position as nothing more than a health
issue
for the woman.