Newsline

Newsline , Society

Thinking About Abortion and Arizona Elections

Posted on Thursday, May 9, 2024
|
by Outside Contributor
|
16 Comments
|
Print
abortion definition

There seems to be no issue that stirs up people as the issue of abortion. It likely is because the thinking and narrative around the subject have been so distorted over the past 40 years or so. It would appear that the issue will be critical in multiple elections this cycle, including the state of Arizona. If that is so, we need to be clear-headed about what is going on.

In part, the controversy is because abortion is both a moral and a political issue. One can take a moral point of view, and also a political point of view that may differ or may coincide. Is that hypocrisy or just because some things are in the moral realm and some in the political realm?  There has always been tension between complying with the civil government and Biblical law as in Mark 12:17. “Render unto  Ceasar…”

The fundamental purpose of government is to protect life and property, and clearly, a life is not only affected, but terminated in the abortion decision. So, the state and the law do have a role to play, do they not?

The standard thinking of the left has been that it is all about a woman being able to control “her body.” A “right” conjured out of a penumbra of the Constitution relating to privacy. More recent Supreme Court decisions have found otherwise. However, a baby is not part of her body. She is carrying the baby to be sure, she helped create the baby, but the baby is not part of her body.

As an aside, it was striking how easily the left disposed of the “right to control our bodies” when it came to COVID-19 vaccinations.

Now your spleen is part of your body and if it has to be removed, that is a choice a person of either sex should be able to make in consultation with medical experts.

However, a spleen does not have a heart and brain, and it will not grow into an independent human, depart from your body, and then lead a totally separate existence. So, we can dispense with the “it is a woman’s right to control her body argument.” It is not logical and never has been.

Abortion should not be part of the women’s rights movement but has been conflated as such. It is not about being able to vote, own property, or pursue a career. The baby is not part of her body although it obviously can affect her body for about nine months and beyond.

What are “reproductive rights” we hear so much about?  It would seem that would entail the right to not have sex, the right to have sex with whom you choose when you choose, and whether that is within a lasting relationship or not. It would include the right to choose any appropriate device, procedure, or medication to either avoid or enhance pregnancy. You can see there is a lot of freedom there to make decisions about sex and childbearing.

When you think about it, it is odd that such angst is vented on this subject when today women have more choices to determine when and if they will become pregnant than they ever had in history.  And for the most part, they are legal, available, easy to use, and inexpensive.

Planned Parenthood was founded as a birth control movement to reduce the number of those believed inferior before most contraceptives. Margaret Sanger was an outspoken racist and bigot who was part of the broader Progressive goal of eugenics. But technology makes birth control possible without killing babies, regardless of the motivations.

In this sense, abortion is not “birth control” but rather the product of the failure of “birth control”.

But for the period women are fertile, do “reproductive rights” allow for the killing of another being, a human baby for reasons of family planning or convenience? As previously noted, this killing would seem less “necessary” today given technological and pharmacological advances.

It would also appear that once conception has occurred, and a baby is growing, something fundamental has changed. The rights of the baby should have some consideration in the matter. Indeed, the rights of the father, which are often completely ignored, should also be considered.

Today, the argument is made that only the “rights” of the mother should be considered. Generally speaking, outside of war, most advanced societies believe the right to kill another human is moral only in defense of the assaulted person or another innocent human being. The baby is not “assaulting” anyone with the intent to cause harm or injury and is entirely innocent.

Many try to circumvent this obvious truth by contending that abortion is not killing a baby.  Clearly, whether by pharmaceutical means or being dismembered inside the mother by devices, the baby is being killed. The counter argument then is made that is it “not a baby” but rather a “clump of cells.”

What is a “clump of cells”?  Well, a clump of cells could be asparagus growing or toe fungus.  If that were the case, then there is no question that you can destroy this clump of cells.  However, the “clump of cells” in question is quite particular.  It contains the DNA of at least two people, but actually many more people that had created their own clump of cells.  This clump of cells will become only one thing, a new human being. 

To avoid the reality of this logic, the next typical step is to suggest as long as this clump of cells is not developed enough “to be human”, the baby has no rights whatsoever and thus it is OK to kill the clump.

But then there is the tricky issue of determining when precisely is that?  When the baby is “viable” or when the baby can “feel pain”?  How do we know when a baby feels pain?  Modern science seems to be constantly proving that viability is possible at remarkably early ages.  Neither the viability nor the feeling of pain can be precisely calculated.

It is extremely difficult to know exactly at what point a zygote becomes a baby and hence the argument that it is at the point of conception that it becomes human makes logical sense. As noted before, regardless of age or development, the zygote will only become a human baby and not asparagus.

The stage of human development does not obviate your rights.  A two-year-old has few rights, but with growth, he or she will obtain them.  But we would not kill the child even though they have not obtained all legal rights.  The baby in or out of the womb has a right to live, once created.

The right to live is the most fundamental of all rights. Without life, other rights make no sense.  It is rare to hear anyone suggest non-living objects have rights.

Either a woman has an absolute right to kill her baby or she does not.That is the question and your thought exercise for the day. And if it is not an absolute right, when and under what circumstances does she have a limited right? This recent exchange with liberal Bill Maher is revealing.

The compromise that has been sought for years has been if the pregnancy is a physical danger ( as opposed to mental anguish) to the mother’s life, or if the baby is old enough to feel pain (a slippery concept to be sure), there should be some limitations on “abortion rights.”

We never liked the term “reproductive rights” because those rights were exercised before conception while the goal of abortion itself is NOT to be reproductive.  The exercise of “reproductive rights” was exercised prior to the baby coming into existence.  Most reproductive “rights” are exercised without the intention of becoming pregnant. 

Some people suggest that as a man, I have no right to speak on these matters. That’s baloney. It is a contentious political issue and a matter of law and morality.  As such, all citizens have a right to voice an opinion. Don’t be made to cower by this argument.

The abortion movement was born as part of the eugenics movement.  Much like the argument over the stage of development when a baby becomes “human”, this argument can be extended to adults who function at a very low level and do not appear fully aware or competent to enjoy life.  That is a dangerous slope to try to walk.  Not surprisingly, the internal logic of judging the worthiness of life has led to the killing of those with retardation and mental illness in NAZI Germany and the wholesale extermination of those regarded as inferior people. It has also led to a movement in Western countries towards very liberal policies regarding euthanasia.  A general disregard and respect for life is spreading.

Further, we are warning you that your emotions are about to be manipulated cynically for political reasons.  Democrats want to paint all Republicans as unfeeling retrogrades who don’t appreciate the gains women have made in our society. They believe they have found a wedge issue to exploit. They want to push initiatives and legislation that are extreme and only consider the mother’s wishes. Further, beyond abortion, they want to redefine the family unit and the idea of sex itself.

Our moral sense is to protect a woman’s choice up to the point of pregnancy, and then recognize the rights of the baby are now involved. If the mother does not wish to keep the baby, many couples are looking to adopt.

That might cause the mother emotional trauma. Yes, it might, but that is preferred to killing the baby who suffers damage that can never be reversed.  The exercise of all rights involves corresponding responsibilities.

Former President Trump is catching lots of flak because he has taken a position that irritates the purists on both sides of the debate.

As a political question, he has made the correct decision.  This is a question for states to decide. That is what appointing originalists for the bench was all about. Alabama may decide differently from California.  That is the wonder of federalism, which is our system of government.

So, the battle for public opinion will have to be conducted on a state-by-state basis.

As for Arizona, a reasonable compromise would be to limit abortion to very early in the term of pregnancy, before the baby is “viable” and “likely to feel pain.”  We don’t know the exact time that would be and we humans at this juncture can’t really know.  However, it is the best that can be done at this time to try to resolve a contentious issue. It will not be acceptable completely to either side.  That is the very nature of compromise.

There is no unlimited right to abortion and it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Women have the right to determine their destiny, but not by killing others to achieve it.

On the other hand, our right-to-life friends have not succeeded in convincing a large majority of their position.  Some key states have already passed very expansive abortion legislation. That is the political reality we must contend with.

Politically speaking, it would be unwise to sacrifice all other important issues, just to this single issue.  Our country is going bankrupt, our elections are rigged, the government is imprisoning right to life demonstrators, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights are under assault, we are being invaded by illegal immigrants, Democrats favor criminals over the innocent, and we are abandoning the rule of law to a giant administrative state.  The next President will likely appoint several more Supreme Court Justices.

If Democrats win big and take the White House and House and Senate, the right-to-life movement will be in even worse shape than it is now.  It is far better for conservatives to win, not just for this issue, but for many of those aforementioned.

Therefore, it would be best to push a moderate line of compromise that avoids Democrat victory.  Make the other side sound extremist and radical while we should sound sensible.

Morally, I can’t support abortion, but politically it is clear the Democrats are going to use this in Arizona and other key states and exploit this difficult moral and personal issue for their own ends.

A reasonable political compromise, and we admit it is an uncomfortable compromise, is to allow abortion under certain limited circumstances that involve the safety of the mother and require that the procedure occur very early in the term of pregnancy.

For our right-to-life friends, compromise may be insufficient.  We appreciate why. If it is human life, killing is not justified at any stage of development, except to save the mother.  Why would the murder of babies be OK in one state and not another? That is logically and morally consistent. But a worse outcome would be an unlimited “right” to taxpayer-funded abortion enshrined, including late-term abortions, in our Constitution or law; plus a Democrat victory that allows them to overturn every aspect of our society and economy.

Politics isn’t bean bag and we must try to advance what we can and get the vote in Arizona of a large contingent of independent voters. This may be the best we can get even if it is not all that we may want.

Compromise in the political realm does not substitute for the need to continue the moral conversation. Abortion is a poor substitute for self-control or contraception.

Ultimately we have to convince suburban women, and many men,  that killing babies should not be part of the “women’s rights movement.”

Reprinted with permission from The Prickly Pear by

Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lieutenant Beale
Lieutenant Beale
8 days ago

One of the very taboo subjects that is rarely talked about is what happens to the aborted fetus after the fact. (Especially in very late term abortions) This is a gray area that apparently, in some cases, the “parts” are sold, some for research and some for God knows what. This seems a little too ghoulish and Dr. Mengele-ish to me.
Moreover, what are the psychological ramifications for a young mother after the fact.
You don’t hear too much about any of this in the MSM.

Max
Max
8 days ago

THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER — Every child is a gift from GOD. He has plans for everyone and allows free will to make the right choice. Every person will have to face judgement either at the Bema with Lord Jesus or at the end with the final judgement at the throne of GOD. Every abortion done by man or woman will have to be answered for. Man’s law on or about abortion does not supersede that of the Word of GOD.

Robert Zuccaro
Robert Zuccaro
4 days ago

If a major sticking point to Obamacare was federally-funded birth control, why is there a need for abortion due to “convenience of the mother”? Oops, there I go trying to make sense… my bad!

Ralph
Ralph
4 days ago

Abstinence and contraception are both legal and moral. ABORTION is MURDER! No one should have the RIGHT to murder another living being.

R Reag
R Reag
6 days ago

What’s not working are politicians switching back and forth on abortion every few minutes. What’s also not working is arguing over the 2020 election. Come up with a vision for the future and stick to it or the other side will win.

Gerald
Gerald
3 days ago

This question of abortion has a simple answer. Our Declaration of Independence answered this question.
The document does NOT read ‘All men are BORN equal’, and given rights by their mothers.
No, because ‘All men are CREATED equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights’.
Weather created by rape, incest, or incarnation; they ALL have the unalienable Right to life. (even while being created)

Leslie
Leslie
4 days ago

When legislation affects men’s body parts, then we have something to talk about. Until then, nope. Don’t care what party you are with. This one issue is why the Dems are currently in charge. Wake up Republican party.

Donald K Dalton Jr
Donald K Dalton Jr
4 days ago

All I can say is the issue of abortion is an issue as individual as any person who casts a vote. It will be a loosing issue if the Republicans decide to push their morals on others again. Hopefully that lesson was learned in the 2022 election.

Ethel Boyd
Ethel Boyd
4 days ago

Perhaps if we regained our respect for human life, not just for animal and ecological life, just perhaps a lot of our other problems, in the USA and around the world would go away or become much better.

Cher
Cher
4 days ago

This was excellent. It gives the Truth. In the end, decisions to do what God hates will lie with the individual. But the question remains, ‘how best can we try to Save as many babies as we can save?’ And the answer to that lies in ‘compromise’ between both sides. If both sides remain dogmatic about ‘what THEY want’, nothing will be done and the fighting will continue, as it has. But in the Middle, there is ‘compromise’ that can be tenable for BOTH sides, though not Perfect. This was a great article I hope all will read and digest what was said in it. Life is about ‘compromise’ and not ‘demanding’ your own way. It’s true that God’s Way is Perfect because He is Perfect in ALL His Ways. But man is flawed. And we live among men here on Earth. And God leaves it to Man to figure some things out. What YOU may do and believe about God and His Way may be different from what your neighbor believes and does. So we have to find that middle ground where we can BOTH believe and do what we believe, and still live at peace as God wants us to.
Just because we are called on to ‘compromise’ in order to ‘get along’, does NOT MEAN we have ‘compromised our Beliefs’, when we haven’t! But we can apply certain restraints that ‘all’ can hopefully abide and live with, SUCH THAT SOME BABIES WILL BE SAVED. And isn’t THAT the Goal? To SAVE LIVES??? Sticking to our extremist positions (BAN ALL Abortions!) won’t save ANY babies, BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER PASS a Vote in America! Should we FORCE our ‘religious views’ on everyone? no. No more than we would want THEM to be able to FORCE THEIR VIEWS on US (as they have DONE and we didn’t like it, did we?).We don’t have to ACCEPT THEIR extreme immoral positions that include Infanticide. But it would be just as wrong for us to try to force OUR extreme moral positions on THEM. They’re not going to stand for that! And it will only make them dig in their heels all the more! There is a better way to resolve this dilemma – compromise.
We both ‘give something up’. If some people STILL CHOOSE to have Abortions (within a newly devised restraint mechanism) – that is not on YOU, but on THEM who make that choice. No one is forcing them to do it, and no one is keeping them from it, up TO a certain limit (which is usually ‘time’). It’s still unethical and wrong to US, but not to THEM. And if wrong, THEY will stand before GOD one day for it, not YOU. But in the meantime, we can stand before God knowing that we DID all we COULD DO to PREVENT MORE BABIES from being slaughtered in the ‘time’ we live in. Just like in the Holocaust, there were some who did what they could to SAVE PEOPLE’s Lives. They couldn’t stop Hitler, but they could do what THEY could do, and they DID. And that’s what God requires of us. That we DO what we CAN. The World is not in lockstep with God, and God knows that, and DOESN’T hold YOU responsible for the things THEY do. We may not like the things they do, but unless you CAN stop them, YOU are not responsible for what THEY do.
And we can keep working hard to ‘inform’ people about what’s happening in the womb, and MANY are turning from Abortion that way! their choice! their informed decision! That’s how it should be. Every baby is still a gift from God! One thing we CAN do is to support the passing of a ‘Heartbeat Bill’ in your State. It’s not perfect, but it SAVES BABIES LIVES. And it is very amicable to young people who ‘understand’ what a ‘heartbeat’ MEANS, even if they support Abortion Rights! And it’s very early in the developmental stage of the infant. Many a Christian says ‘it’s not good enough! babies still die!’ Yes, but it SAVES SO MANY! And THAT is MUCH BETTER than NOT having the Bill, because while we’re WAITING for Perfection, ALL unwanted BABIES are DYING! (being murdered),
Which is better, being ABLE to SAVE SOME, or letting them ALL Die while we WAIT for Perfection to take hold in our wayward and selfish godless societies? What would Jesus do? He DIDN’T condemn the woman caught in adultery, he forgave her and just told her to ‘go and sin no more’. That’s Jesus in action. He could have just stood back and watched them ‘stone her’ because she deserved it (in that society), but instead he offered her ‘Life’ back to her. She was just one. Did that mean he was FOR Adultery? No. He is for Life. He is for Second Chances. He is for Forgiveness. That’s why He parted sides with the Pharisees and Rulers of His day. He was NOT like THEM – handing out Judgments. He was about Saving them from themselves – one at a time, making headway, changing lives.
That’s what we need to be doing here and now. Find it in your hearts and minds to make a ‘Difference’ instead of just ‘starting quarrels’ that go nowhere! Be the Light shining in the Darkness!

An older blonde women laughing in the kitchen with a grey haired man.
AMAC’s Medicare Advisory Service
The knowledge, guidance, and choices of coverage you’re looking for. The exceptional service you deserve.
The AMAC App on 3 different iPhone
Download the AMAC App
The AMAC App is the place to go for insightful news wherever you are and whenever you want.
political
JCN; Job Creators Network
AAWU amac action update

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

16
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games