The primary way pro-choicers argue for abortion is through emotional sloganeering because their side of the debate cannot stand up to rigorous analysis or logic. But, simplistic and manipulative though it may be, it has worked well enough for the past 50 years and as a result, I guess they can take perverse pride in the deaths of 60 million unborn babies over that time.
One of the typical lines you hear from them is this: “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” This appeals to people’s inherent libertarianism and the “live and let live” ethos that is an important notion in our national makeup.
But, I doubt the average pro-choicer would be as liberal (in the true sense of that word) when it comes to guns. An average gun owner may also say, “If you don’t like guns, don’t get one.” But, the average pro-choicer tends to be anti-gun as well and would say in response, “But your right to have a gun can result in an innocent person getting shot.”
Fair enough. Our constitutional right to bear arms does come with some risk, but we as a society have been willing to bear that risk in return for the liberties and protections we enjoy through gun ownership. Plus, as mentioned above, gun ownership is a right explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
As was clear even in Roe v. Wade, no such right was explicit in our founding document, so the justices used very lazy, weak legal argumentation to claim that it was somehow implicit in the also non-enumerated “right to privacy.” A house of cards built on sand, if there ever was one.
And this is why Roe must go. Not because it made abortion legal in all 50 states, which I think a bad thing, but because it set a precedent for the Supreme Court to use bad law to achieve certain cultural ends. That is not the job of the court and fundamentally undermines its legitimacy and authority.
But getting back to my imaginary friend who claims the problem of abortion just goes away if I, as a pro-lifer, avoid having one or paying for one.
Well, just as that pro-choicer no doubt agonizes over the plight of various marginalized groups in our country who are supposedly harmed by systemic racism or unjust laws, I too am concerned about the most marginalized of all humans, the unborn. I feel an obligation to defend the weakest and most vulnerable of people not only from persecution or unfair treatment, but from the denial of the most basic right of all, the right to life.
We as a nation decided we could not abide a similarly unjust situation when it came to slavery. Slave owners and those who supported that evil institution would and did say, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t have a slave.” But the better lights in our nation rightly pointed out the terrible injustice of that condition and would not stand by idly as their fellow human beings were treated like property, beaten and even killed at the whim of their “owners.”
Just the same, we who are against abortion are not motivated by “controlling women’s bodies” or denying people “reproductive healthcare.” No. We are FOR protecting the very life of the human being in a mother’s womb, for protecting his/her rights and well-being.
Yes, the woman who is pregnant unintentionally will face a difficult path forward, but no amount of difficulty could ever justify killing the baby as a moral, valid solution to the problem.
So, no, I cannot just avoid the problem of abortion by avoiding being involved in one. I must try and defend the most innocent lives as a human being, an American, a father, and a friend. To do any less would be to shirk my duty and allow the strong to dominate the weak in the most terrible way possible. That is not the kind of world or country I want to live in.
Peachtree City, Ga.
The title says “Pros and cons”, but leaves out half of that. When all you do is spew political talking points about something you know nothing about, that’s what happens. At the end of the day, two people are involved to create a fetus. If a woman isn’t allowed to make a decision about her body, then the male should be held legally accountable to help support he rearing of the child. If not, the “man” should go to jail just like the woman would if she made the difficult decision to follow through with an abortion.
Let’s go with Hoffman’s slavery analogy to abortion. Africans who were deemed as less worthy by other Africans were captured and sold to white slave traders. They were brought to America against their wills and treated in a subhuman manner as slaves for centuries. Their servitude and the argument of the rights of states to maintain and expand this servitude eventually led to our Civil War and their ultimate emancipation from slavery.
So how did the United States treat these noble slaves after emancipation? You get the picture.
After the conservative, anti-abortion dogs finally catch the car, what will they do with it? The blue-eyed blond babies will be adopted – no problem. The others will suffer just as did the emancipated slaves. There is no appetite for social spending for poor children, and Georgia has been particularly cruel by turning down Medicaid funding repeatedly. I can already hear the Trey Hoffmans complaining that irresponsible sexual behavior is causing a crisis by multiplying the poor, and “you can’t reward irresponsibility by picking up the tab for these natural consequences.” These children will have to suffer just as did the emancipated slaves left to fend for themselves against horrendous odds.
That’s the way it was for poor children born before Roe, and I haven’t seen any indication that human nature has improved in the last 50 years. Certainly, politicians have not improved since 1973. So, the conservatives can celebrate their roles as “abolitionists,” but the United States has a long history of abdicating any responsibility for the newly emancipated.
DH – I said it makes Bernard look like a crybaby. I didn’t say he was one. I don’t know him or her. I did challenge him/her because instead of rebutting what Trey wrote they simply called him an unsubstantiated name (chauvinist) and ran off. That’s a cowardly action. Treys title was misleading but did anyone really expect him to list the pros of a side he doesn’t agree with?
Roe vs Wade needs to go because two people make a baby, therefore, if one person wants the baby, he or she should have that choice! Abortion is used as a form of birth control! There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy, abortion should not be one of them. Men are entitled to want the life he created as much as a women doesn’t. That is what Roe vs Wade is about. I am sure in the banning of abortions the Supreme Court would allow abortions for rape, incest, well being of the mothers or babies health. There should be a ban against it period. Haven’t you ever heard the saying “if you play with fire, you’ll get burnt!”? That’s what happens with sex,too!
Rape isn’t consensual, thus the victim isn’t “playing with fire”. They are being physically and emotionally assaulted. Also, if your argument is to save lives, why allow a pregnancy to continue when the outcome would likely cause death to mother and/or baby? Seems contradictory.
This letter doesn’t do what the title says. It’s completely one sided written by a male chauvinist.
Hey bernard_jack……how about arguing the points Trey puts out there with logical, well-thought-out points of your own? You know, it doesn’t take any talent, any brain activity, or any logic to just belittle the letter-writer and call him names like you did. It just makes you look like a crybaby. It’s also the easy way out and it’s the way losers typically respond when they can’t win an argument that’s based on reason, logic, and past history.
Hmmmm, someone complaining about name calling and then demonstrating the same behavior.
This subject has been rehashed millions of times and of course we all know Trey’s feelings about it. Numerous commenters have taken him to task and since he doesn’t respond back in the comments, there’s no reason to put much thought into his blather. He tries to persuade under the guise of objectivity, but never actually demonstrates it.
Jack is doing nothing that you have not done. He stated his opinion and did so in two succinct sentences. Is that what triggered you?
I agree Mr. Bernard. Trey claims to present the pro-choice side of the debate, but, as usual, he seems constitutionally incapable of even understanding a position that differs from his hyper-partisan dicta. He sets up a weak straw man, and even then, he has trouble dismantling it. Representing the pro-choice argument as merely a flippant idea that one can easily choose to have or avoid an abortion for whimsical reasons does not even begin to examine the complexity of a serious decision that a pregnant woman must make.
And it would be difficult to pose this choice in a more “emotionally sloganeering ” manner than “killing the baby.”
Less emotional is the goal? How about “fetus flushing”? Or consider “womb excavation”.