Although several other concerns related to the country's disastrous financial situation and government's overreach should be the major considerations in the upcoming election, the pro-choice vs the pro-life debate weighs heavily on a large percentage of the population. This blogger believes that government has no business promoting or especially financing abortion. But the question still remains as to what degree if any government should restrict it.
Playing the Devil's Advocate with tongue in cheek, I once suggested that the Law should exempt what I called 'Murder of First Blood'. The idea was that if parents wanted to terminate their children, the state would stay out of the problem. The thinking went along the lines that if parents were deranged enough to kill their offspring, then the world would be better off to rid the gene pool of their genes. Although the premise is flawed for a number of reasons, it serves to shed some light on the subject of abortion.
Arguments for 'pro-choice' are primarily concerned with women's rights to control their own bodies, not only for their health concerns but as a measure of their freedom. With the exception of some religious fundamentalists, most people are agreeable to abortions when the woman's health is at risk, and also when a pregnancy results from rape.
On the 'pro-life' side, the argument is pretty much centered on the question of whether or not the fetus is to be accorded the full rights of a human. The religious couch their position in the dogma that a soul is created at conception, but to enact law based on this belief violates at least the spirit of our Constitution. On the other hand, however, biologically a fertilized egg (human of course, not chicken etc.) has a full chromosome complement of the species, and therefore is, strictly speaking, a human. Not being a lawyer I am not certain, but I suspect that this does not in and of itself confer any specific legal rights or protections, but it does underscore the problem of defining when such rights and protections begin.
If we adopt the 'Murder of First Blood' idea outlined above, the problem goes away in part, but not completely. Currently, the doctor performing the abortion is 'killer', even though the mother (and presumably the father) has given permission. But even my off-the-wall 'First Blood' suggestion does NOT exempt anyone other than the parents. In this case, any abortion with the intent of destroying the fetus by the doctor is presumably a homicide on his part. The procedure of 'partial birth abortion' is the most blatant case of this. The doctor is killing a human, no matter what spin you try to put on it. However, the 'First Blood' principle would allow the doctor to deliver the baby, and THEN present it to the mother. If she can then kill the infant she holds, it's her business. In fact, 'First Blood' would allow her to delay the decision to the day the little terror breaks up her prized china, but I digress.
In all seriousness, however, I hold that a reasonable compromise position may be suggested by the above. It should never be the intent of the medical profession to kill a human, whether it is called abortion or euthanasia. In the abortion case, if a woman desires that her pregnancy be terminated, she should be able to have the procedure performed by competent medical personnel. However, the medical community should be legally charged with making every reasonable attempt to preserve the fetus, not destroy it. Since viability of a premature fetus before the third trimester is unlikely, most (but not necessarily all) earlier abortions would result in the demise of the fetus in spite of reasonable attempts to save it. On the other hand, late term abortions would have the same chance of surviving as similar preemies. The advantage of this approach is that there is no artificial cutoff time or event. The fetus would survive or die on its own.
This suggestion probably will not suit either extreme of the political spectrum, but it does accomplish two things. It recognizes the right of the woman (with the approval of her husband, if married), to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and it recognizes the rights of the unborn as humans, but not as parasites. It further gets the medical profession out of the business of murder.
marcus.everett@citlink.net
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Partisan Politics
The following piece was originally published on OpEds.com just before the 2004 elections. It was again relevant in 2008, and it still merits repeating now.
Well, boys and girls, here we are again in the middle of another name-calling, lying, blustering, posturing, hand-shaking, baby kissing election cycle. Who will win the big prize, Gladstone Gander or Elmer Fudd? [this dig would have been perfect in 2008. In 2012 we may have Gladstone Gander vs Gladstone Gander].
Seriously, though, there are some considerations that voters should keep in mind as the pathetic spectacle unfolds. In a perfect world, one would vote for the candidate with the highest morals, character and intelligence, hoping that he or she would put the welfare of the constituency above personal gain and power. However, we have far from a perfect world, and voting for the best candidate - even one of impeccable character and wisdom - is not necessarily the best choice.
As has been demonstrated all too often in recent years, the spoils system perks for the majority party of each House of the Federal Legislature drastically changes the game. The eligibility for positions of Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and all of the various Committee Chairmanships, together with the tendency for most party members to vote as a block, has resulted in the partisan makeup of Congress being much more important than the qualifications of any particular member. This obviously implies, unfortunately, that on voting for your Senator or your Congressman, you should carefully evaluate which party represents those values that you hold dear, and vote accordingly along party lines. Even if there is, to quote a famous Alabaman, "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, you must determine the few pennies difference that does exist and encourage it. To do otherwise will guarantee that the general trend will not be in the direction you desire.
In voting for the President, however, the situation is quite different. Although party pressure is sure to have some influence, if either candidate exhibits a clear advantage in terms of character and a dedication to principles that you support, then you should vote accordingly, even if it means crossing party lines. The nature of the Presidency is such that party affiliation is of concern only if the office is held by a petty partisan politician. [as is, for example, currently the case in 2012].
For local elections, the considerations above may or may not be applicable, but one should give some thought as to whether qualifications or party affiliation is the more important parameter. It is sad that our political system has degenerated to such a state, but it is the fact of the matter.
Seriously, though, there are some considerations that voters should keep in mind as the pathetic spectacle unfolds. In a perfect world, one would vote for the candidate with the highest morals, character and intelligence, hoping that he or she would put the welfare of the constituency above personal gain and power. However, we have far from a perfect world, and voting for the best candidate - even one of impeccable character and wisdom - is not necessarily the best choice.
As has been demonstrated all too often in recent years, the spoils system perks for the majority party of each House of the Federal Legislature drastically changes the game. The eligibility for positions of Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and all of the various Committee Chairmanships, together with the tendency for most party members to vote as a block, has resulted in the partisan makeup of Congress being much more important than the qualifications of any particular member. This obviously implies, unfortunately, that on voting for your Senator or your Congressman, you should carefully evaluate which party represents those values that you hold dear, and vote accordingly along party lines. Even if there is, to quote a famous Alabaman, "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, you must determine the few pennies difference that does exist and encourage it. To do otherwise will guarantee that the general trend will not be in the direction you desire.
In voting for the President, however, the situation is quite different. Although party pressure is sure to have some influence, if either candidate exhibits a clear advantage in terms of character and a dedication to principles that you support, then you should vote accordingly, even if it means crossing party lines. The nature of the Presidency is such that party affiliation is of concern only if the office is held by a petty partisan politician. [as is, for example, currently the case in 2012].
For local elections, the considerations above may or may not be applicable, but one should give some thought as to whether qualifications or party affiliation is the more important parameter. It is sad that our political system has degenerated to such a state, but it is the fact of the matter.
MarcusEverett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)