Since we are in the political season I want to address the hot button topic of abortion. Many will vote based on a candidates position on abortion. I hold that those that support the pro choice position do not truly hold to that position if all the ramifications were to come with it.
The Susan B. Anthony Society is a slander to her good name since she condemned abortion whiles being the number one proponent of women's rights in the USA yet has a society named after her that promotes abortion rights.
Next would be Margaret Sanger who is credited with the founding of "Planned Parenthood" by "Planned Parenthood". This is the largest abortion mill origination in the country. While they are founded on reducing the population of the "unfit" (read non-white and or undesirables) by abortion and any other means they do not even hold true to the origins of the abhorrence to abortion by Sanger the racist. Sanger may well have advocated for birth control for the "unfit" she did not indorse abortion, just the opposite.
Find out what's happening in Herndonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Let us move past the history of the USSR and Nazi Germany in the roles they played in abortion rights and let use move up to the present day of abortion. If abortion was chosen because the child is a girl and that is undesirable then that would be unacceptable to those in the pro choice camp. It cannot be the choice to abort because a girl is the result of a pregnancy, therefore not really prochoice.
Most, but not all, believe that abortion is a right and that doctors do not have the right to not perform abortion. The right to choice stops at the end of the nose of the one having the abortion. All others must comply to include others paying for it. It seems amazing that choice is a one way street and that someone else's morals, ethics and religious convictions should be irrelevant when an abortion is demanded.
Find out what's happening in Herndonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The Supreme Court ruled on abortion based on a nonexistent position in the Constitution which was based on a "Living Constitution" that was to follow what the people really wanted or some such convoluted reasoning. Well since majority of the people disagree with abortion as a generic position with various stipulations would it not be reasonable to revisit the decision and rule based on what the people do want.
The most significant question in the debate is if an abortion right is the right of the women and the women only because it is her body then there is no rational reason why the father should be held legally responsible for child support in the event of a choice not to abort the pregnancy. I do in fact support child support from the father because it is his responsibility. But the legal argument that the father has no say so in the matter logically follows that he has no legal obligation either. Both parties are responsible at the time of conception. But the legality of it is that the woman takes complete control of all decisions from that moment forward. Why then does the father have any legal responsibilities if he has no legal recourse if the woman decides to abort or not to abort the pregnancy? If the woman chooses to not abort and the father chooses to abort he has no standing in the decision. The mother should have no standing to hold him responsible in the eyes of the law. In fact a husband wanting a vasectomy must get the wife's consent but the wife does not need the husband's consent to have an abortion. If the law allowed the guys to get away with not paying child support I would imagine that abortion would be looked at a lot differently.
Lastly, if I am right and abortion is killing a child there is a dead child as a result. If abortions were illegal and I am wrong about my position there is a live child as a result. Which would you rather have as the result of someone being wrong?
