As a society we may never find a solution to the question of abortion. A one size fits all wrench cannot be manufactured given the current ideological complexities. In the aftermath of Roe v. Wade politicians and their constituencies have been pushed into extreme camps by highly organized and well funded propaganda machines on both sides of the divide. Ideological and theological absolutism makes it extremely difficult to even have a conversation let alone work toward a common solution. The results have been tragic with both sides working to eliminate smart and pragmatic leadership that can work toward a significant reduction in the staggering number of abortions performed annually here in the U.S. What we are left with are only those politicians willing to toe the party line and cow tail to the party ideologues to get their endorsements, money and mailing lists.
Barack Obama in his books and numerous speeches has talked about the importance of faith and values in the public square. He acknowledges that "our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition". He was one of the first Democratic leaders to warn secularists in his own party that "to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." He has been highly critical of the close alliances and political marriages made by the GOP and the so called Religious Right and has called it a "highjacking" of faith. Many throughout the country agree with him and no longer wish to be used or taken for granted by any political party or candidate. Yet somehow he seems to have stopped short in his failure to carefully examine the same "highjacking" of the Democratic Party by secular extremists and to demonstrate his own independence.
Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League which have consistently given him a 100% rating and demand ideological purity for keeping abortion legal and accessible for any reason throughout pregnancy have vowed to punish any candidate who will not toe the party line. This is in spite of that fact that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood called abortion 'murder' and they referred to it as such up to 1968. Instead he told Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July of 2007 that "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do". This act would codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee abortion on demand throughout the United States and make any state regulatory statute invalid.
However a new generation of young voters many whom are supporting Obama's candidacy in record numbers are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the extremist ideology of abortion on demand. With new ultrasound technology they see clearly that the unborn child is a person no matter how small and that a lot of fast talk about reproductive rights and choice cannot answer the horror of a partial-birth abortion.
In a nation where nearly 1.4 million abortions are performed on women annually they are asking if things have gone too far? What if they emerge as the new frontier in compassionately championing the unborn against corporate medical interests or in the name of equality? What if they make the connection between slavery and the eugenics movement of 1920s and 1930s which eventually lead to the holocaust and approach it from the vantage point of civil rights and once again decide that it is wrong for a society to decide that some persons are equal, have rights and are more "legally human" than the unborn child? What if they transcend party ideology, labels and stereotypes?
What if somehow the debate was reframed and fueled by a younger generation who not wanting to make it always illegal saw it as an unmitigated tragedy and that government did have a greater role to play? What if civil rights leaders for instance began to seriously examine the disproportionate numbers of abortions performed on black women? It is estimated that approximately 36% of nearly 1.4 million abortions performed annually are performed on black women. A disproportionate number when you stop to consider that blacks represent a total of about 13% of the overall population in the U.S and certainly something to consider when you think about reasons that Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the largest minority group in the U.S.
America's history with slavery and abortion may be headed on a collision course which is unavoidable. What if it was no longer a religious issue but a civil rights issue? Influenced by faith but not driven by it. What if it became a bonafide human rights issue? What if a new generation who has grown up benefiting by the advancements in human rights and civil rights start seeing it in this framework? Recognizing that in the 20th Century it was the Democratic Party for the most part that did more to advance the cause of civil and human rights not the GOP it could become an issue that is no longer a forgone conclusion with many civil rights organizations or within the Democratic Party itself. While it certainly is to early to tell these shifts are entirely possible particularly now that the Democratic Party is no longer running from a discussion of faith and politics but reaching out more and more to younger voters and people of faith. If this trend continues these questions will inevitably be raised at some point and the old rules may no longer apply.
It remains to be seen whether Obama can yet exhibit the kind of leadership that will apply intellectual honesty and common sense to this issue and not just toe the party line. Can he really reach across the divide and find common ground? All indications thus far prove doubtful however he may wake up one morning and wonder where these winds of "change" came from and where they are headed?
Abortion was allegedly granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to permit women control over their bodies. Apparently women do not believe anyone should be able to tell them what to do with their bodies because they had sex. Oddly, these same women then demand control over another person's body to pay for the child they chose to have because they had sex.
From a judicial stand point, if the sex was consensual, there had to be a non verbal agreement or contract between the two parties that they would have sex. There is no way for a court to determine what each party wanted prior to the sex unless it was written in a contract. There are four possibilities;
1.Both wanted sex just for the feeling of pleasure and neither want a child.
2.Both wanted sex to produce a child.
3.The female wanted to have a child and the male did not.
4.The Male wanted to have a child and the female did not.
The latter two is where the legal problems arise. Should one party be able to take control over the other party's body? In one case the female would be forced to have a child or forced labor for 9 months. Granted this is a 24 hour a day "job" if you want to call it that and they should be credited to 27 months of labor.
The other a male would be "forced to labor for another" for a period of 216 months. In some cases it is a classic condition of involuntary servitude (illegal involuntary servitude if the person has not been convicted of a crime) or peonage.
This is clearly prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, because no crime has been committed permitting a person to be subjected to involuntary servitude.
This fact has been ignored by American courts, allegedly to benefit the children.
It is a contradiction of law to force one party to labor for having sex and not the other. The American lawyers have recognized this problem already and had the Black's Law Dictionary remove or change the legal definitions of peonage and (illegal) involuntary servitude from the 7th to the 8th edition.
The legal definitions were clearly a problem for them to be openly published.
Clearly for the law to be equitable, if the male wants the child the female should be forced to have the child. Or no man should be forced to labor for another where they have not been convicted of a crime.
(Child support orders are not issued from a criminal proceding)
That said, they should also both be equally responsible and have equal rights to the child. (Unless there has been a crime committed)
Support for the child should only be awarded to insure the child is living at an equitable standard with either parent.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 789 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:17:55 PM
You have totally ignored the fact that contraceptives are not 100% reliable.
If a woman does not want to carry a child for 9 months and go thru the sometimes painful, sometimes dangerous birth, the physical scarring that can occur, the sometimes darn awful PMS that can follow childbirth and can last for a very long time, she should have the right to decide for herself without interference or input, unless she requests it.
Men seem to have amnesia that it took them also to create that pregnancy, and from that point on they, unlike the woman, are scott free from all the physical changes, discomforts, nasuea, swollen hands & feet, hormone changes, heartburn, extreme fatigue and all the numerous other things that are part of carrying a child to term...something no MAN will have to decide to undergo or not. Without the experience you are clueless.
Until men grows a uterus and can give birth they just need to sit down and shut up.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 218 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 7:26:38 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
