| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Reframing Abortion
The abortion issue is clearly at a stalemate in todays political landscape. The issue needs a jolt such that it resumes it's place at the forefront of political thought. To get this issue going again, I recommend that the GOP repositions itself in defense of the belief that it is a:
COUPLE'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Scientifically, i think we have a real shot at this. If you look at the logic that the sum of the parts equals the whole, one can emphatically state that a woman's body, during the gestation period, is not only her's but of the male donor's as well.
To understand this, one looks to genetic testing (not available during Roe vs. Wade). If one looks at the genetic makeup of the fertilized embryo, one can easily determine that the embryo contains both female and male genetic markers. And thus, the embryo is created by both male and female and thus is owned by both male and female.
The "choice" argument of course will be that it is a woman's body and thus it should be her choice...but not so fast. If one applies the sum of the parts equals the whole principle....the minute that embryo attaches itself to the wall of the utereus, the female body is comprised of male parts too...and thus she is no longer the sole owner...at least for the gestational period. To deny this would be to deny the science of genetics...and of course that would render the stem cell argument null and void.
Note that the whole goal of this is require complete unanimity in order to pull the kill switch.
REAL ACTION BY THE PASSIONATE
It's time for true leadership on the issue. No laws, no picketing, just plain action. With regards to abortion, GOD doesn't want a law, a judge, or some other legal decree. He simply wants the life saved. PERIOD. It's been my observance over oh so many years that the conservative movement has lost sight of the true goal; TO SAVE THE UNBORN'S LIFE. Instead, they've replaced the true goal with off target goals such as getting judges elected, getting referenda on the ballots, lobbying, etc....all because it is felt that judicial action is a necessary prequisite to stop the occurance of abortions. POPPYCOCK!
It's time for real action...and real sacrifice such that abortion becomes the exception, not the rule. It's critical that the most passionate about this lead on this issue. It is imperative that every passionate person / family offer a mother considering abortion:
- That the person/family will raise the child. We'll pay for the childs upbringing. we'll feed the child, clothe the child, educate the child, etc. Either on a part time or full time basis. This is the ultimate committment.
Of course we all know that mothers who have had abortions have "what if" thoughts. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could give a real answer. Give her an opportunity to "turn the clock" back. And best of all, wouldn't it be wonderful if she in turn, now more mature if young at the time of birth, would cath the fever and do the same for another mother. You know, a "pay it forward" type deal.
It's understood that the personal finances required to do this would be extraordinary. They would never work out on paper. But nothing real is ever easy. However, it can work. It just takes sacrifice. It would be an example. If enough light was shown on the actions, It would actually start a movement. After all, those celebrities adopt overseas, and they're revered as beloved saviors. Imagine if a nation was doing it for real.
I realize this is the ULTIMATE ASK. Biological children of families which embark down this path probably won't get to go to the "best" colleges. They probably won't get the best clothes. They won't have the latest iphone, etc. But they can be taught the art of sacrifice for a greater good. Mom's and Dad's won't have the best clothes either. They're retirements might not be funded to the fullest (if any). Bills will probably be late...but it can be done. I'm sure if it becomes "COOL TO SAVE A LIFE" then funding will find it's way to those who have sacrificed and those who have sacrificed won't be alone for long. Movmements Work.
LIFE OFFICES IN ALL PLANNED PARENTHOODS
President Bush did a great thing. He legitimized faith based organizations. And the majority of the country agrees. Having Life Offices in every planned parenthood and clinic can act as centers for information; and can function as access points to a life support network. Tons and tons of stuff can be done here.
EDUCATION, PUBLIC AWARENESS
Pro Choice has managed to purvey the notion that once a young girl gets pregnant, her life is basically over. They have young pregnant girls believing that they won't be successful, they won't get to finish their education, and that if they go through with the pregnancy, they'll miserably embark upon parenthood instead of living a "normal" teenage life. And, of course, it is these fears that, in the mind of a young pregnant girl, make abortion a viable option.
I believe there needs to be a strong message contrary to that belief. If there are cultural issues that make carrying full term an issue (and there are), they should be removed using the vehicle addressed in Item 2 of this post. The whole idea being to take every reason off the table which makes abortion a viable option. The Life Offices addressed in section 3 of this post can be used as source points for this cultural campaign.
We can look to the governor from alaska and her child as an example. You know, maybe Palin wasn't supposed to be the Vice President. Rather, she might be destined for a much greater role, an abassador for life.
I think we need to treat "Life" as a product. Get Madison Avenue involved. Instead of paying the lobbyist, pay the advertiser. You know, the Gardasil commercial comes to mind. Snappy, up-tempo, fresh, current. I think the same can be done for the product of "Life". No more boring PSA's.
MOVEMENT VS. LAW
History has shown that laws pertaining to divisive issues always are preceeded by cultural movements. Civil Rights is the most obvious example. We've tried the law route for the last 35 years. It's time for a new approach.
If you're looking at the minority element, take for example the hispanic population. Most a devoutly catholic. If you look at the Southern Baptist constituency, then you'll find a significant portion are African American. A positive spin on this issue will garner support and re-capture those constituents which some say we lost in the last election.
CONCLUDING
To me, the above is a framework, i.e. something to work for. However, it is understood that it is vastly different than the current mantra of our party. I submit the above simply to go on the record, entice thought, and to invite argument. I look forward to response.


Comments
I would rather see you pour money
into finding a way to artificial wombs, rather than say that a man has veto power over a woman's life. Let alone a 12-year-old girl's. Let alone if that man is her eleven year old brother.
But the rest of what you're saying sounds really cool. It's not effective to force women to have children when they are 30 -- more birth defects, etc. So any way that a woman can have a kid when it's biologicallty reasonable, is a good way.
Can the co-owners decide to terminate their property?
Your scheme takes the view that the fetus is "owned" by the two biological parents.
Under this co-ownership scheme, is it permissible to end the child's life, if both owners of the person in the womb should so decide? That is, how much control over their joint property do the owners have?
The human being in the woman's womb is "owned" by both partners. Are we once again saying human beings can be owned? Further you state that once the fetus attaches to the womb, the woman's body is owned by both parties, making the woman owned in part by the man. Is this really going to work? In the case of sperm donors would the donor "own" the fetus and the woman's womb during gestation? What notification procedures would be required so that his property rights are protected?
Seems pretty unworkable to me.
a better plan is more contractual
and would depend on partners signing a piece of paper before every sex act, or a more continuing one, about what their preferences for the child might be.
And I mean before EVERY act, even if using contraception.
That is at least somewhat workable, and you could give reasonable outs in case of problems.
You know
you are taking his words too literally. You understand what he means, he is obviously trying to state the fact that many women have abortions regardless of what the father wants. Framing it this way will possibly give the father at least an ounce of decision making power. Of course considering the baby as property or owned is not what hes trying to say. Hes saying that since women can currently treat the unborn fetus as trash by destroying it why not let the father help to decide whether or not the unborn fetus is trash or a human with rights.
Sorry
I was trying to respond to johnson springs statment not yours.
I said this somewhere else.
Women are biologically tuned to not consent to their first pregnancy. Many women think that by not saying "no" at any point during or before the sexual act, that it isn't rape (it certainly isn't in the strict legal sense).
However, since there is a considerable probability that the pregnancy was less consensual on one side than the other, I believe that there is a good argument for letting the second part of a major financial undertaking come from the person who may not have been capable of giving informed consent.
Huh?
So women are tuned to killing their unborn? Or did you mean to the first time they have sex?
So even though the sex is consentual it still can be partly rape? wtf?
Just the idea of calling having a child a financial undertaking exhibits how much you care for the unborn or "human rights."
Your insights confuse me more and more everday.
ahem. sorry. women are biiologically designed
to be raped the first time they conceive. It's natural (and I know this sounds all Hobbesian.)
After the first pregnancy, they have a better knowledge of their hormonal states (trial by fire and all that).
A woman who does not say no, is not someone who is always consenting. There is a huge difference between "I want to have sex with my maybe boyfriend" and "this is really bad, I should say something, he wants to fuck me"
A considerable number of raped women have an orgasm during the rape. This does not imply taht the rape was consensual.
Biology is odd.
Having a child is a financial undertaking, and in America it can impact a woman's financial status until the day she dies. Want me to pull the numbers? I call it that because it's important to understand that a woman undergoes ACTUAL LOSS from a pregnancy. Now, you can certainly claim that she also gains something (see reference above on ability to avoid non-consensual sex, among other more important things)
A war is won in stages
While I am very much pro life, I wonder if conservatives are in effect biting off more than they can chew here. The country right now favors abortion rights. Wouldn't a better strategey for the long haul be to work towards changing that underlying culture? If we railtoad through new laws when we have majorities, won't our opponents just do the same when they inevitably get power. This seems like a never-ending cylce.
I think we could get reasonable people to agree to some reasonable restrictions on abortion
(e.g. parental notification, later term, etc.), thereby slowly changing the cultural attitudes about abortion.
Sometimes I wonder if the way conservatives, myself included, tend to frame big issues in black or white terms ens up pushing the moderates away. This is an overwhemingly moderate country so we need them to further our agenda.
I'm all in favor of moderation.
but... there's a problem. all of what you mention is black and white.
Parental Notification -- great unless you're talking about incest. Also, many parents would kick their daughter out of their house -- and that contributes to homeless on our streets. Not Productive.
Later Term -- most of these are done for health reasons, or because a girl didn't realize that she was pregnant. I'd be in favor of reducing later term abortions, perhaps by providing some abortion counseling with prenatal care, so that these were less likely.
Just my thoughts.