Today I'm going to tackle an issue most prefer to avoid: abortion.
Abortion: On the surface I am opposed to abortion and all it stands for. To me it is murder. Although, if we go by the U.S. Constitution, the subject is not mentioned, and therefore, by the 10th amendment, abortion is left to the states to decide. It is for this reason I find the Rowe-V-Wade decision to be unconstitutional and wrong. Prior to that 1972 ruling, some states allowed abortion and others did not. This is called Federalism. If you like abortion, then you can go to a state that allows it. If you are opposed to it, then you can go to a state that does not supports it. This is the same as any other topic that is not covered by the Constitution, such as healthcare.
Abortion/rape/incest: The ethics of abortion is one most people like to avoid. So if you get pregnant by a guy who raped you, do you want to spend the rest of your life looking at this guys baby? Do you want to spend the rest of your life caring for a baby that has no mind and body?
Surely, if you have other kids, it would't be fair to them if you spend less time with them so you can care for a bed-ridden kid who is a burden on everyone who cares for him. On the one side, all life is God's life. The normal kid is just as much God's child as the challenged child.
So the one argument is that challenged children are God's challenge to you. On the other side, about 90 percent of aborted children are from impoverished urban areas.
One argument is that these kids will be a burden on society, so we might as well let their parents decide to abort them. Believe it or not, this was an actual argument in the early 20th century in Washington, although at that time it was regarding euthanasia.
Today the same argument is made by those who champion for the right to abort, what they refer to as pro choice. My problem with this argument is that if you decide it's okay for one person to decide to have an abortion, then you are opting to play God.
If you are playing God, then you have to decide at what point is that baby a real person. You will have to draw a line somewhere. Is that baby a real person at conception (pro-life argument)? Is that baby a human at 1 month? 2 months? 3 months? (where the Supreme Court Drew the line)? When it develops a heart? at birth? When?
So by my argument here, both pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates will not like me. Pro- life people who want to force their view that abortion is murder on others are just as guilty as the Supreme Court was in 1972. Rowe -v-Wade would be overturned, and the states would be allowed to decide the issue of abortion.
The only way to truly settle the issue other than that would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At least this is how it is in the Unites States anyway.
And if you think the Constitution is old and antiquated and therefore holds no merit in this argument, see this post: The Constitution should be etched in stone.
Your thoughts are welcome, but you better be nice for crying out loud.