It's 2011 already? Admittedly, I find it difficult to get back into the thick of things after a much-needed break from blogging, but there's no better way than to take the plunge into an emotionally charged issue!
I'll feature posts throughout January on abortion. My perspective has changed through the years, particularly after I became a libertarian.
As a former conservative, I was heavily involved in pro-life organizations from sidewalk protests and vigils, counseling, education and legislative action. My participation stemmed not only from my Christian convictions, but from personal experience. I had an abortion in 1978 before I returned to the faith of my childhood.
Every year about this time, the voice of the pro-life movement intensifies as America approaches the 22nd--the day the Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right in 1973 under the US Constitution.
How am I different as a libertarian? Well, I am just as passionate about the life of the pre-born, but have expanded the scope of my concern to question both the death penalty amid a corrupt judicial system and the human carnage of unconstitutional wars. Thus, I think a better definition for me now would be pro-living.
And I just don't tote around an arsenal of preaching Scriptures. My friends today include folks who don't sing in conservative or Christian choirs, so I'm honing my skills on topics such as personhood, biology, feminism, viability, and right to aggress in order to speak outwardly to wider, more diverse audiences.
All libertarians agree that the Supreme Court had no business hearing the Roe case in 1973. Abortion is not a constitutional issue; hence, jurisdiction over any prohibitions or allowances should have remained within the states, according to the Tenth Amendment.
Many libertarians, however, will argue against legislation even at the state level. They will point out that libertarian philosophy centers around a person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property; but for now, there is no legal consensus on when the fetus actually becomes a person. Therefore, the fetus does not qualify for unequivocal protection and remains the property of the host.
Nobody wants government at any level monitoring their personal choices and doling out consequences. Our tax money can be better spent if we diverted it from criminal prosecution of voluntary, victimless pursuits such as gambling and prostitution. We should be able to eat as much fat as we crave, smoke whatever we want, and marry whomever we desire.
Notwithstanding, I believe the issue of abortion is critically different because it is not a victimless procedure. My position is that abortion puts into tension the equal rights of two individuals to life, liberty, and the ownership of property (their bodies). Sovereign rights cannot be transferred or taken away from a person based on one's size, location, appearance, or level of function.
Throughout the month, I'd like to zero in on certain topics within the abortion debate. I want to be a better libertarian, able to speak intelligently to both sides of the issue WITHOUT automatically resorting to the Bible. I certainly am not ashamed of the Holy Scriptures; I delight in sharing what I feel are clear words on the sanctity of life within the womb, but only when asked and in an appropriate setting.
I spent years on the front lines of the Christian pro-life movement in the 80s. We hurt our cause when fellow workers would frequently fall back on "Well, God says it's wrong, that's why" when asked to explain their position. Our credibility suffered even more when someone in the ranks would start bashing the morals of their pro-choice opponents.
After examining the scientific information we have so far regarding human conception, I am compelled to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. Abolitionists took a similar stand when the Supreme Court in 1857 declared slaves to be chattel (property). This meant that society could legally view slaves as non-persons, devoid of any rights to be acknowledged and subsequently protected.
This court decision did not stop abolitionists from speaking out and working within and (at times) against the system to free the slaves, despite the plantation owner's assertion that he could do what he willed with his property and no one had the right to invade his privacy (the pivotal point of the Roe v. Wade case). Normally, such a claim is honored--especially by libertarians--unless aggression is committed against innocent people while one is exercising his freedoms!
Thus, the entire debate seems to center on whether or not the fetus (Latin for young one) is already a person in utero.
In the days to follow we'll look at scientific evidence for life at conception, along with the interesting hormone the host's body naturally secretes to stop it from rejecting the fetus as foreign tissue. We'll delve into the issue of viability and potentiality. (Is the fetus biologically complete at conception or is something added along the way to make it human? Does something happen at some critical point that gives us an "aha!" moment?)
The idea of the fetus as the ultimate immigrant and the host's claimed right to aggress at any stage of pregnancy will be explored. I'm eager to query the feminist reasoning on abortion when, after years of monumental, historical struggles, a woman will aggress the basic rights of another woman who has yet to win her fight for equal status and opportunities under the law?
What has been the time-honored libertarian position on responsible parenting and the rights of the child? What about abortion and the free market principle?
Why was Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, and exactly how was the decree worded? What were the laws before 1973, and what would the abortion landscape look like across the United States if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned in the future?
I want to also note the inconsistencies found in the political Left and Right. The Left works hard to help their governments care for the disadvantaged and denied in society. Why not the pre-born?
The Right claims to champion the cause of the pre-born, but cheers when their government starves children overseas through economic sanctions or bombs their homes in wars not fought for defense, but imperialistic interference and nation building.
Additionally, I'll be posting parts of my personal story on another blog site (Up the Sycamore) that speaks more to the Church. A report from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that although the overall abortion rate in the United States had dropped, the rates for Christian women, which have yearly been proportionate with the rest of the abortive population, have NOT declined:
I'll feature posts throughout January on abortion. My perspective has changed through the years, particularly after I became a libertarian.
As a former conservative, I was heavily involved in pro-life organizations from sidewalk protests and vigils, counseling, education and legislative action. My participation stemmed not only from my Christian convictions, but from personal experience. I had an abortion in 1978 before I returned to the faith of my childhood.
Every year about this time, the voice of the pro-life movement intensifies as America approaches the 22nd--the day the Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right in 1973 under the US Constitution.
How am I different as a libertarian? Well, I am just as passionate about the life of the pre-born, but have expanded the scope of my concern to question both the death penalty amid a corrupt judicial system and the human carnage of unconstitutional wars. Thus, I think a better definition for me now would be pro-living.
And I just don't tote around an arsenal of preaching Scriptures. My friends today include folks who don't sing in conservative or Christian choirs, so I'm honing my skills on topics such as personhood, biology, feminism, viability, and right to aggress in order to speak outwardly to wider, more diverse audiences.
All libertarians agree that the Supreme Court had no business hearing the Roe case in 1973. Abortion is not a constitutional issue; hence, jurisdiction over any prohibitions or allowances should have remained within the states, according to the Tenth Amendment.
Many libertarians, however, will argue against legislation even at the state level. They will point out that libertarian philosophy centers around a person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property; but for now, there is no legal consensus on when the fetus actually becomes a person. Therefore, the fetus does not qualify for unequivocal protection and remains the property of the host.
Nobody wants government at any level monitoring their personal choices and doling out consequences. Our tax money can be better spent if we diverted it from criminal prosecution of voluntary, victimless pursuits such as gambling and prostitution. We should be able to eat as much fat as we crave, smoke whatever we want, and marry whomever we desire.
Notwithstanding, I believe the issue of abortion is critically different because it is not a victimless procedure. My position is that abortion puts into tension the equal rights of two individuals to life, liberty, and the ownership of property (their bodies). Sovereign rights cannot be transferred or taken away from a person based on one's size, location, appearance, or level of function.
Throughout the month, I'd like to zero in on certain topics within the abortion debate. I want to be a better libertarian, able to speak intelligently to both sides of the issue WITHOUT automatically resorting to the Bible. I certainly am not ashamed of the Holy Scriptures; I delight in sharing what I feel are clear words on the sanctity of life within the womb, but only when asked and in an appropriate setting.
I spent years on the front lines of the Christian pro-life movement in the 80s. We hurt our cause when fellow workers would frequently fall back on "Well, God says it's wrong, that's why" when asked to explain their position. Our credibility suffered even more when someone in the ranks would start bashing the morals of their pro-choice opponents.
After examining the scientific information we have so far regarding human conception, I am compelled to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. Abolitionists took a similar stand when the Supreme Court in 1857 declared slaves to be chattel (property). This meant that society could legally view slaves as non-persons, devoid of any rights to be acknowledged and subsequently protected.
This court decision did not stop abolitionists from speaking out and working within and (at times) against the system to free the slaves, despite the plantation owner's assertion that he could do what he willed with his property and no one had the right to invade his privacy (the pivotal point of the Roe v. Wade case). Normally, such a claim is honored--especially by libertarians--unless aggression is committed against innocent people while one is exercising his freedoms!
Thus, the entire debate seems to center on whether or not the fetus (Latin for young one) is already a person in utero.
In the days to follow we'll look at scientific evidence for life at conception, along with the interesting hormone the host's body naturally secretes to stop it from rejecting the fetus as foreign tissue. We'll delve into the issue of viability and potentiality. (Is the fetus biologically complete at conception or is something added along the way to make it human? Does something happen at some critical point that gives us an "aha!" moment?)
The idea of the fetus as the ultimate immigrant and the host's claimed right to aggress at any stage of pregnancy will be explored. I'm eager to query the feminist reasoning on abortion when, after years of monumental, historical struggles, a woman will aggress the basic rights of another woman who has yet to win her fight for equal status and opportunities under the law?
What has been the time-honored libertarian position on responsible parenting and the rights of the child? What about abortion and the free market principle?
Why was Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, and exactly how was the decree worded? What were the laws before 1973, and what would the abortion landscape look like across the United States if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned in the future?
I want to also note the inconsistencies found in the political Left and Right. The Left works hard to help their governments care for the disadvantaged and denied in society. Why not the pre-born?
The Right claims to champion the cause of the pre-born, but cheers when their government starves children overseas through economic sanctions or bombs their homes in wars not fought for defense, but imperialistic interference and nation building.
Additionally, I'll be posting parts of my personal story on another blog site (Up the Sycamore) that speaks more to the Church. A report from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that although the overall abortion rate in the United States had dropped, the rates for Christian women, which have yearly been proportionate with the rest of the abortive population, have NOT declined:
43% of abortive women identify themselves as Protestants
27% indicate they are Catholics
and
13% of abortions (approx. 170,000 per year) are performed on self-described
“Born Again” or Evangelical Christians.
Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice,
“An Overview of Abortion in the United States,” 2008
In my personal account, I will address how I'm convinced Christians must strive to model a more consistent, pro-life message across the board if we want to be taken seriously about our cause for the pre-born; and we must stop distorting facts and relying on scaremongering tactics.
The Church, as a whole, has done a great job with crisis pregnancy support, aftercare and adoption, but we can do more and do it better--particularly when it comes to helping women find educational and career opportunities that will enable them to make responsible choices for the future.
That brings me to another topic altogether. What about birth control? No, I don't intend to meddle. I simply want to ask, "Aren't we libertarians all about taking responsibility for our own actions and insisting others do the same?"
The Guttmacher Institute additionally reports that nine out of ten women having abortions claim to use birth control, but confess they do not use it as prescribed. Overall, 58% of the women having abortions claim a contraceptive failure; 31% had used a method in the past but were not using one during the month in which they conceived, and 11% had never used any method.
The majority of the women among the 42% who were not using a contraceptive method when they became pregnant had most recently relied on either the pill or the condom. Fifty-three percent of prior pill users and 76% of prior condom users became pregnant within three months of stopping use.
By the way, we're not talking about the contraceptive bungling of naive teens. Most women (56%) having abortions are between the ages of 20-24. They are legal adults in an information-saturated country whose government has poured billions of dollars for years into comprehensive sex education in their public schools along with free condoms and pills--complete with instructions; and all surrounded by a sexually driven culture whose exploits can be accessed with ease 24/7. In other words, there is no excuse for negligence.
Uncle Sam's track record is disappointing. Faith-based abstinence programs are successful (depending on which poll you use) in only delaying the onset of sexual activity (usually by two years). However, even Guttmacher reports that once sex is initiated, religious young people are more likely than their non-religious counterparts to use contraceptives.
So, here we are, America. Billions in government dollars later, thousands of innocent fetuses still pay for someone else's carelessness every day. What is libertarian about that?
Many women say that being forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term is tantamount to slavery--a very un-libertarian idea. Yet, if the authority to regulate abortions returned to the states, statutes would better reflect a community's conscience and vary widely. Abortions would never be totally eradicated (even if completely outlawed, which is not feasible or desirable--unless you love fascism).
By the way, the hype about returning women to the mercy of back alley abortions is a dishonest scare tactic.
Between 1965 and 1966, the period right before states began to legalize abortion, the numbers of total deaths were down to 120 per year--thanks to penicillin. (The majority of deaths weren't from botched procedures, but common infections. Abortive women today are given prescriptions for antibiotics after the procedure to ward off post-op infections.)
There is a difference between a self-induced or "back alley" abortion and an illegal one. According to a 1960 Kinsey study in 1960, 84 to 87 percent of all illegal abortions in the United States were performed by reputable physicians! Planned Parenthood once went on record to say that the percentage was as high as 90%.
Here's another topic to bring to light: if abortion laws returned to the states: would we have to fear women being arrested as murderers or is there precedence for them to be treated as co-victims?
Finally, I want to present compelling, pro-life voices from within the Gay and Lesbian community, pro-life atheists, pro-life anarchists, and others.
I know. Perhaps many of my anarchist friends will shake their heads in disgust and claim I haven't changed much at all because I still advocate state involvement, just on a smaller level. However, even in a voluntary community with mutually supported private police and courts, there would still be standing laws that serve to protect people and their property from harm.
Other libertarians will be in my corner. Conservatives may find me too legislatively weak. That's okay. The bottom line is that libertarianism, and its unswerving respect for the sovereign individual and his or her inherit freedoms--regardless of outward distinctions, limitations, or circumstances--has provided a clear call to my pro-living platform that will prove impossible to shake.
Notice in the Declaration of Independence, that enduring document that defines individual freedom civilly, that all men (humankind) are created, not born equal.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
0 comments:
Post a Comment