I find it disturbing that one of the most contentious issues of our time never gets addressed thoroughly and generally rests on a wholly inadequate argument that the sum total of the abortion issue is a woman's right to do as she will with her own body. This breaks down really quickly when you consider the implications for the life of someone else's body (i.e., the child's) and assuming de facto control over yet another person's body (i.e., the father's in the case of birth) for decades. Yes, I consider taking resources produced by a person's work (covering most of his waking hours) to be exerting control over that person's body.
First, we have the argument over personhood, which is chronically filled with disingenuous arguments and/or combinations of arguments. It is critical to have an absolute answer to the point at which life exists, or at minimum a consistent legal standard. You may notice that the murder of a pregnant woman generally precipitates two separate murder charges. Under the present state of law this is absolutely indefensible. The rule of law cannot tolerate a given individual, in this case an unborn child either being a person or not being a person changeable at any time without notice on the whim of one individual. It at minimum needs to be one way or the other.
The next problem is that if a person reaches the conclusion I consider most reasonable, that an unborn child is indeed a separate and distinct life--a person--then abortion is murder under any and all circumstances under which it may happen. At this point, we must either categorically prohibit abortion or legalize all forms of murder. Any argument aside from this is made from the perspective of being delusional, a liar, or having a complete lack of any sense of objective morality and a complete absence of any sense of rule of law that would make Roy Bean proud.
Second, assuming that we put the argument of personhood to rest one way or other, the next problem is that of equal rights. The present liberal mantra is that it is a woman's choice alone. Setting aside the moral implications, that argument would have merit if she were making a life-changing decision for herself only. As it stands, a woman can have an abortion on demand (i.e., make a unilateral decision to walk away from a pregnancy with no consequences). She can also choose to give birth. The problem is that assuming that she was not raped, two people hold equal responsibility for the pregnancy, but one of those two can act alone to decide the life or death of one individual and can deprive the other of the joys of parenthood with no recourse or perhaps worse yet can force him to pay, in some cases extortionary sums for the next two decades with the man being afforded no influence on the decision whatsoever. If there were equality, a man should have an equal opportunity to walk away with no responsibility (in case of rape in which birth ends up being given to a child, I would put a rapist on work release with the proceeds going to the child and after the child is raised sending the rapist to serve the prison term for his crime).
If we are to tolerate abortion, then a woman should have the first option to opt out, but a man should also have an option to opt out with an equally clean break and walk away free and clear (obviously without any parental rights, privileges, or future contact). I would also like to see a vehicle in which a motivated father could have a child and allow the mother to walk away free and clear after giving birth under the aforementioned terms.
The question is: Do we or do we not believe in equality? If we accept the personhood of an unborn child yet allow the murder of such persons, we have a huge and unacceptable inequality. If we do not accept such personhood, not so much. How can the thinnest pretense of equality before the law be made if it is somehow a violation of a woman's rights to relinquish control over her body for 3/4 of one year, but it is perfectly acceptable to allow her to control as much or more of someone else's life for decades? At minimum, I would argue that this proves that liberal ideologues are either very dishonest or else clinically insane.
I have presented two points in which one cannot have it both ways with any pretense of honesty. What do you think?
Personally, I think that stopping the murder of the most innocent among us and requiring people to take responsibility for their own choices would be the right answer.
David, another point to be addressed is that we have baby mamas delivering babies from multiple baby daddies to the tune of "cha ching cha ching" funded by the taxpayers for every baby they have. These children don't stand a chance in life and that's a problem. How do we address this? Put a cap on the number of children the government will support? Works for me but it's more government intervention.
I do agree that when a couple "gets pregnant" that the father has the same right to be able to keep the child but it's tricky because the woman is carrying the baby and if she doesn't want the child she can compromise the pregnancy and there are real issues at hand. Sadly, a baby will be born in a less than perfect environment.
I don't have a perfect solution, and agree completely about raising babies for profit. I would argue that putting a cap on benefits would not be government intervention so much as a limit on government intervention and an incentive for people not to deliberately milk the taxpayers.
My suspicion is that, given that we hear those on the left constantly harping on the notion that the world is overpopulated, the real motive is to help 'solve' that supposed overpopulation. In a fashion truly worthy of the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the majority of those aborted fall into the class of 'undesirables' albeit with a modified definition of 'undesirable' which is more socio-economic than overtyly racist.
Aside from that, this issue makes a mockery of American-style rule of law at every turn. I had forgotten to raise the point that if viability is considered an acceptable standard, then it should be legal to kill the kid any time before he becomes self-supporting and hits the door. Another concern, reflecting back to the previous paragraph, is that I would have a hard time making a moral or legal distinction sufficient to protect anyone concerning abortions's equally evil twin euthanasia. After all, Nazi Germany was infamous for ridding itself of the burden of 'useless eaters' and we seem to be emulating the good old NSDAP at every turn these days.
All said and done, the government does not have the ability to eliminated evil (as if these jokers would if they could) but it certainly should not be facilitating it (as seems de rigueur at this point). Unfortunately, the only thing different between this and something straight out of Hitler's Germany is that the unborn have been moved up to the top of Niemoller's list (When they came for --- I didn't stand up because I wasnt a ---).