The Real Abortin Debate

Author: Sheldon Reiffenstein

This article is excerpted from my ebook "Liberal Is NOT A Four

Letter Word. "The Real Abortion Debate" Cutting to the chase.

liberals believe that government has no business in medical

decisions between doctor and patient. When the 1973 Roe v Wade

decision gave women the choice over their own bodies, abortion

became a private decision.

Here is where the defendants dive in with their religious

interference. Arguing that the fertilization of an egg is the

creation of life, they say that abortion is the taking of that

life; it is murder. Thus any abortion is wrong. They are

"pro-life" - as if any sane person is "anti-life". They do not

hide their intention to reverse Roe v Wade.

The defendants employ the guerilla tactic of incremental

legislation on abortion. They try to ban a medical procedure

they fatefully call "partial birth abortion", and want to pass

laws that would force doctors of pregnant teens to inform the

girl's parents if she chooses to have an abortion. Each

incremental step carves into the fundamental right to choose.

The defendants' endgame: make abortion completely illegal again.

If they truly believe that is going to stop abortions, they're

living in some weird dreamland.

Making abortions illegal will place even more lives at risk.

Women will be forced to adopt drastic solutions that not only

abort the fetus, but jeopardize a woman's health and life.

Taking away a woman's reproductive rights and subordinating them

to the fetus is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous to

women's health.

Even after criminalizing abortions, the defendants will probably

place some exceptions in any law. One will be: in the case of

incest or rape, abortion should be allowed. Let's see.it's okay

to kill a fetus under circumstances they define, but not under

those the pro-choice people define. Is it me, or is there a

disconnect here?

Another exception inevitably will be to allow abortion if the

health of the mother is at risk. This, too, creates problems. It

places doctors in a difficult position. Not all risk situations

are black and white. What if the doctor decides to abort and is

wrong? With the threat of liability for a judgment call hanging

over his head, a doctor might hesitate, might make a choice that

kills both mother and fetus. Or he could be arrested for

performing an unnecessary abortion.

Making abortion illegal will create murkiness, indecision and

more deaths, without lowering the number of, much less stopping,

abortions.

The argument about when life begins is a huge distraction in the

abortion debate. The defendants love to trap pro-choice people

by getting them to either agree that life begins at conception,

or get them squirming in their chairs trying to avoid the

question. Too many pro-choice people fall for it and they can't

win. We've shown that in any abortion law anti-abortion groups

will need to make concessions that compromise their overriding

principle that all life is sacred. The real discussion cannot be

about when any of us believes life starts. It must be about the

circumstances that make abortion necessary.

Why not take a new, liberal view of the debate? Why won't the

defendants take their heads out of the Bible, and face the

truth? Unmarried people will not stop having sex even with all

the finger-wagging and righteousness of the defendants. Given

that, why not teach proper sexuality education? Why not make

available any and all contraceptive devices that would stop

pregnancy from happening in the first place? Why not let women

be in charge of how they handle their reproductive years? Why

not do all this and create a situation where abortion is less

necessary? Abortion will never be eliminated. The defendants

themselves say they know that in certain circumstances an

abortion is the only medical solution. Once again, they can

practice this moral relativism, while at the same time inciting

abortion foes and painting liberals as "baby killers". Their

tactics suck and we need to call them on it. Rational people are

going to disagree in this debate. What we should strive for is

an agreement to reduce the necessity for abortions. Reason

versus irrationality has to prevail.

About the author:

Sheldon Reiffenstein is a freelance writer and a studen tof

government, with a Political Science degree. His latest book is

titled "Liberal Is NOT A Four Letter Word, available at

www.liberalisnotafourletterword.com/

Buying Pregnancy stuff on the web

US:

At Motherwear you'll find a complete selection of nursing clothes, nursing bras, pumps, and accessories - everything for a nursing mom!

Aaron's Baby Baskets - gifts for babies and new parents.

UK:

Great Savings at Mothercare.com - for UK shoppers.

The Real Abortin Debate

Article : The Real Abortin Debate