An
interesting day politically speaking. Between Rand Paul and Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, the debate on abortion is being reframed.
Essentially, as chair of the DNC, Schultz came out and said there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, after Paul asked reporters to ask her if she supported aborting a 7 lb. baby still in the womb.
He responded back that we need to determine when life begins and it can't simply be at birth, as the DNC chair clearly has decided. Because, essentially, that means that the only difference between a 1-2 lb. baby in the neonatal unit who has been born and the 7-9 lb. baby who is days or weeks from being born is the actual birth. The one who is born has the "right" to life, but the one is is unborn does not.
Whether I agree with Rand Paul is irrelevant. He makes an excellent point. The only true role of government, imo, is to set up rules to determine outcomes when rights collide. When rights don't collide, there is no issue, so government ONLY needs to inject itself when rights are at odds with each other. In the case of an abortion, it isn't simply a woman's right to control her body that is in play, but also the right to life of the child inside that is in play. Therefore, since two unalienable rights are in play, this is EXACTLY where government should place itself. The problem lies in that society can't agree. From the Catholic Church who says life starts at conception to the DNC chair who says life starts at birth. That's a 40 week difference of opinion.
The Declaration of Independence recognized early the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution clearly grants its protection to those "born and naturalized". However, the Constitution isn't the final arbiter of rights, according to the Declaration. Rather, something else determines whether a right is unalienable because these supposed rights predate the Constitution and are not determined by government, but exist regardless of government. Whatever you believe that something else to be (God, nature, whatever), almost everyone has agreed that the right to life is one of those unalienable rights.
Therefore, when life begins is the struggle. It isn't for many people of faith because they believe it isn't their choice to determine that and so they often stick with conception. It isn't for those who simply feel life starts when something is born and not before. I do find this an interesting opinion because it is inconsistently applied when the same people supporting this position also support criminal charges against criminals who harmed or killed a fetus. This suggests life isn't the point for that group, but rather whether or not a child is wanted is the point. If it is wanted, well, it deserves protection, even in the womb, but if it isn't wanted or it is inconvenient, well, there's no protection there unless it manages to get born. Welcome to ancient Sparta if that is the case, because that mindset is essentially the same as the Spartan practice.
I don't have the answer. I've never supported abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses, or abortion as a form of birth control. However, I've recognized the possibility of exceptions. Deformity, rape, incest, severe defect. An argument can be made (in terms of rights, not religion) that there is a balance to be had between the two positions. At any rate, I have seen the location of what constitutes acceptable debate on this issue shift today, and if nothing else happens with his candidacy, I commend Rand Paul for that.
Essentially, as chair of the DNC, Schultz came out and said there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, after Paul asked reporters to ask her if she supported aborting a 7 lb. baby still in the womb.
He responded back that we need to determine when life begins and it can't simply be at birth, as the DNC chair clearly has decided. Because, essentially, that means that the only difference between a 1-2 lb. baby in the neonatal unit who has been born and the 7-9 lb. baby who is days or weeks from being born is the actual birth. The one who is born has the "right" to life, but the one is is unborn does not.
Whether I agree with Rand Paul is irrelevant. He makes an excellent point. The only true role of government, imo, is to set up rules to determine outcomes when rights collide. When rights don't collide, there is no issue, so government ONLY needs to inject itself when rights are at odds with each other. In the case of an abortion, it isn't simply a woman's right to control her body that is in play, but also the right to life of the child inside that is in play. Therefore, since two unalienable rights are in play, this is EXACTLY where government should place itself. The problem lies in that society can't agree. From the Catholic Church who says life starts at conception to the DNC chair who says life starts at birth. That's a 40 week difference of opinion.
The Declaration of Independence recognized early the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution clearly grants its protection to those "born and naturalized". However, the Constitution isn't the final arbiter of rights, according to the Declaration. Rather, something else determines whether a right is unalienable because these supposed rights predate the Constitution and are not determined by government, but exist regardless of government. Whatever you believe that something else to be (God, nature, whatever), almost everyone has agreed that the right to life is one of those unalienable rights.
Therefore, when life begins is the struggle. It isn't for many people of faith because they believe it isn't their choice to determine that and so they often stick with conception. It isn't for those who simply feel life starts when something is born and not before. I do find this an interesting opinion because it is inconsistently applied when the same people supporting this position also support criminal charges against criminals who harmed or killed a fetus. This suggests life isn't the point for that group, but rather whether or not a child is wanted is the point. If it is wanted, well, it deserves protection, even in the womb, but if it isn't wanted or it is inconvenient, well, there's no protection there unless it manages to get born. Welcome to ancient Sparta if that is the case, because that mindset is essentially the same as the Spartan practice.
I don't have the answer. I've never supported abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses, or abortion as a form of birth control. However, I've recognized the possibility of exceptions. Deformity, rape, incest, severe defect. An argument can be made (in terms of rights, not religion) that there is a balance to be had between the two positions. At any rate, I have seen the location of what constitutes acceptable debate on this issue shift today, and if nothing else happens with his candidacy, I commend Rand Paul for that.
1 comment:
The author makes excellent points--and clarifies a situation and debate that are all too often colored with fifty shades of emotionalism. This blog, however, presents both sides--without attempting to make a decision which, obviously, is going to take respectful debate and compromise on many sides.
Post a Comment