The Big A-Bomb

Well we are less than a year out from our next political election and I figured I might interact a little with some of the major issues that will be front and center during the upcoming election. Don’t worry I will avoid all the polemics that normally come along with talking about politics and maybe we will all learn something. And since this blog has been going for… well a while now, and I do not think we have written anything political, and both Matt and I have our degrees in political science, writing a bit about politics seems like a good idea.

And if your one of those people who thinks politics is useless and this world is going to hell in a hand basket, or just do not like what I have to say, then go to this website and just start counting down.

Now on to the actual post.

We all know what the A-bomb is, abortion. Like it or not the issue is not going anywhere. It has been one of the main focal points for the last few Republican and Democrat debates. The issue is huge because many falsely see it as a religious issue. Sadly, many pro-choice people think the only reason people support the pro-life point of view is because of their religious beliefs. I will admit for many it is a large part, but a logically sound case against abortion can be made without invoking religion, Francis Beckwith’s great book “Defending Life” comes to mind as a stellar example. Too often religious folk reinforce this stereotype by being single issue voters. Basically deciding that no matter what the two competing candidates believe about war, environment, energy, taxes, education, whoever is pro-life is the person they will vote for. This is a mistake.

Laying my cards out on the table I am enthusiastically pro-life. Not just because of my religious convictions, but because the “error on the side of life” argument. Essentially, even if we cannot definitively prove when life begins, then we ought to error on the side of life. Here many on the pro-choice side will invoke the almighty Constitutional right to privacy. This is what many politicians do; they say they are personally against abortion, but they want to respect the right to privacy. First off there is no right to privacy found in the constitution, no where. Precedent has been established in the courts over the years but the right is far from absolute. For example my privacy is always limited when it impinges upon the welfare of another. Or the fact that I am legally not allowed to kill myself, even though this seems like a private matter.

As you dig a bit deeper you begin to uncover the inconsistency in the pro-choice view. They will tell you that they think abortions are “tragic” and they would like to see them reduced. But if there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with it, what makes it tragic or why should we want to see them reduced? We should have no more of an emotive feeling or discomfort to an abortion then having warts removed.

Yet all of us realize that something tragic occurs during an abortion. That something has gone terribly wrong. Even our legal system is not able to effectively live in the incoherent world that has been constructed for them. Take this story from last week for example. Turns out Mr. Patel was quite against his girlfriend getting pregnant so he decided to slip RU-486 (the abortion pill) into her milkshake. She put the pieces together and came to the horrific conclusion that the two miscarriages she has had in the last year were probably due to the same cause. Mr. Patel is now rightfully being charged with first degree murder.

So as the courts stand in contradiction of saying it is legally okay for the woman to kill the baby and murder for her boyfriend to do so we are left with the obvious question. Why is it morally/legally right for the woman to kill the baby but first degree murder for her boyfriend to do so?


4 Responses

  1. I am not sure Patel should be charged with murder, based on the court’s definition of abortion rights. perhaps assault, though, would be appropriate. Abortion rights are predicated on the assumption that a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body, meaning that the embryo is a part of her body. Patel assaulted a part of her body, therefore, he should be charged with assault. A murder conviction will surely be overturned.

    So many of the A-bomb political issues make no sense apart from a morality that is not self-evident in nature. Why be for equality of the races of sexes, or for human rights? Nature shows no such concern. Why should we? Do the zebras worry about how lions are treated? I bet they don’t. If anything, Patel should be awarded as a hero who has thrown off small-minded dogmas and sought to carve out his own vision of life by the force of his will. He is the Nietzschean Ubermensch.

  2. A Nietzsche “superman” reference. I love it.

  3. Everyone loves Nietzsche unless they themselves get Nietzsche’d by someone else. Then they want vengeful Old Testament God.

  4. […] “A Bomb” Quote Ryan wrote a very insightful post a few weeks back about abortion. I found this quote today very […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: