Friday, August 24, 2012
If I Were Writing The Republican Platform On Abortion
Against Mitt Romney's own policies about abortion, the Republican National Committee has placed a "no holds barred" abortion policy into the Republican platform. The committee has gone on record as being opposed to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. Romney will clearly not endorse nor enforce this portion of his party's platform. He has said so repeatedly, and condemned Senate Candidate Akin for his insensitive remarks. Romney urged Akin to step down. Most of the Republican party are also against this extreme ban. Why?
The abortion issue is poison. There are simply too many sharp edges on the abortion issue. I just read a Gallup poll which said 51% of Americans are now pro-life; that's a significant increase in those who oppose abortion. However, that pro-life poll reveals several nuances. Twenty percent of those pro-life folks are willing to make exceptions when rape, incest or the life of the mother is involved.
Those on the left believe that government should never be involved in a woman's choice to abort her own fetus. On the surface that may sound reasonable to the Democratic party. However, when you dig beneath the surface you find all kinds of instances where abortion is indeed "murder" and is often abused.
For example, when one googles the abortion issue you find thousands of instances where women are using abortion as a form of birth control. Case studies show women who have aborted as many as 15 times. One Health and Human Services study showed that Black women abort at five times the rate of whites and Hispanics. Is a failure to take a birth control pill justification for aborting children? There a hundreds of adoption agencies perfectly willing to take in unwanted children. Too, over the last decade, hospitals and fire departments have set up a "no questions asked" drop off policy, where women who have a baby they don't want, can simply drop the infant off at their nearest hospital or fire department where they will be accepted without a question being asked.
And I won't sicken you by showing you fully developed infants who are aborted in late term, and often for no valid reason. That type of "killing" adds fuel to the fire for those who have strong feelings about any type of abortions. According to the New York Times welfare mothers abort at 8 times higher rates than non-welfare mothers. Should those who oppose abortion be required to fund with their tax dollars something they are morally opposed to?
If I had to guess I would say that most people are not radically opposed to abortion in certain circumstances; this includes millions of conservative voters. What we do have a problem with is the government's use of our tax dollars to fund abortions, and the liberals' false assumption that conservatives are trying to control what a woman does with her body.
If I were sitting on that Republican Platform Committee I would urge the party to hold firm with their stand against abortion. However, I would add the caveat that abortion is permissible for rape, incest or the health of the mother. To do otherwise is absolutely wrong. I cannot imagine the level of anger I would harbor against government if a female in my family were forced to carry to term the sperm of a rapist or sex abuser. Nor would I ever be willing to risk the life of a loved one, simply to preserve that fetus.
I would suggest conservatives adopt a different route for ending the mass killing of fetuses. Let's first show compassion for victims of rape and incest, or to protect the health of the mother. Then, let's work to defeat legislation that funds abortions that occur simply as a matter of convenience, or as a perverted form of birth control.
Finally, let's repeal Obamacare, a program that forces religious organizations and American taxpayers to pay for a medical procedure that they strongly believe is immoral.