Sunday, September 14, 2008

Two Editorials on Abortion - Editorial #1




Last Chance -- For Life By Patrick Buchanan (conservative)




Near the end of a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., a woman arose to offer a passionate plea to Barack Obama to "stop these abortions."
Obama's response was cool, direct, unequivocal.
"Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. ... I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
"Punished with a baby."
Obama sees an unwanted pregnancy as a cruel and punitive sanction for a teenager who has made a mistake, and abortion as the way out, the road to absolution and redemption.
The contrast with Sarah Palin could not be more stark. At the birth of her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, Gov. Palin said: "We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.
"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."
Between the convictions and values of Palin and those of Barack, then, there is a world of difference. In the culture war that is rooted in religious faith, they are on opposite sides of the dividing line.
But more crucial than their conflicting beliefs is the political reality. This election is America's last hope to reverse Roe v. Wade. Upon its outcome will rest the life, or death, of millions of unborn children. The great social cause of the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus, of the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, of the entire right-to-life movement, hangs today in the balance.
Why? It is not just that Obama is a pro-choice absolutist who defends the grisly procedure known as partial-birth abortion, who backs a Freedom of Choice Act to abolish every restriction in every state, who even opposed a born-alive infant protection act.
Nor is it because Joe Biden is a NARAL Catholic who has been admonished by bishops not to take communion because he has, through his career, supported a women's "right" to abortion, the exercise of which right has ended the lives of 45 million unborn.
Nor is it even because McCain professes to be pro-life, or Gov. Palin is a woman who not only talks the talk but walks the walk of life.
No. The reason this election is the last chance for life is the Supreme Court. For it alone -- given the cowardice of a Congress that refuses to restrict its authority -- has the power to reverse Roe, and because that court may be within a single vote of doing so.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts appear steeled to overturn Roe and return this most divisive issue since slavery to the states, where it resided until January 1973.
And John Paul Stevens, the oldest and perhaps most pro-choice justice at 88, is a likely retiree in the next four years. And there is a possibility Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 75, a survivor of cancer, could depart as did Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Thus, in the first term of the next president, there is a strong probability that one or two of the most pro-Roe justices will leave the bench. Replacement of even one of these two liberal activists with a jurist who has a Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas record on the U.S. appellate court could initiate a challenge to Roe, and its rapid reversal.
Not only would that decision be a stunning perhaps irreversible victory for the pro-life cause, it would return the issue of abortion to Congress and the states, where numerous legislators are prepared to curtail if not outlaw abortion on demand in America.
Overturning Roe would re-energize the right-to-life movement in every state. In some, like California and New York, where it could not wholly prevail, some restrictions -- i.e., no abortions after viability -- might be imposed. Requirements such as for parental notification before a teenager has an abortion and that pregnant women be informed of what the procedure means and the trauma that often follows could be written into law.
If Roe goes, all things are possible. If Roe remains, all is lost.
Is there any certainty that John McCain, who set up the Gang of 14 to give Democrats veto over the most conservative of Bush judges, would nominate an Alito or a Roberts? No.
But there is a certainty that a President Obama would move swiftly to replace a Stevens or Ginsberg, or any other justice who steps downs or dies, with a pro-choice jurist. For support for Roe v. Wade is a litmus test in today's Democratic Party, where the right to an abortion has been elevated to the highest rank in the Constitution.
Bottom line. If Obama-Biden wins, Roe is forever. If McCain-Palin wins, Roe could be gone by the decade's end.
As Catholics are the swing voters who likely will decide this election, one awaits the moral counsel of the Catholic hierarchy.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I strongly agree with Barac Obama. What a woman chooses to do with her body is her decision, not the governments. Say for example a teenage girl decides to have sex, and she gets pregnant. She should have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body.

Most teenagers are no where near ready to take on the responsibility of having a baby, and in that case it would be better if a baby did not have to be born into an unstable home. An abortion is a choice, the government should not be able to decide for you.

Anonymous said...

Tea Leaf--A good choice a young lady would have is to give the baby up for adoption. Many people may think this is a selfish act, but in reality it's a very selfless thing to do. There are so many couples who are incapable of having their own children and want a baby so bad they'd do anything. Do you know how many people go through tremendous having still-borns and miscarriages when people are selfishly choosing to kill a baby?? That definitely does not seem right to me at all.

As for women choosing what they want to do with their bodies, here's a bright idea: control should be having the ability to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. There are also many medical risks and emotional stress and depression after an abortion. Some people's argue for an abortion is that the baby is not living. A fetus is a living human right after conception. It develops a heartbeat at just 22 days. I say abortion is murder, as it is taking a human life.

Anonymous said...

But does she have the right to decide what happens to someone else's body? Abortion is murder. It is as simple as that. Once a woman finds out she is pregnant, the baby inside of her already has a heartbeat. It is a living human being just waiting to finish its development process and come into this world.

tea leaf. the baby does not have to be born into an unstable home. if that is what you are most concerned about, there is a solution. Adoption. There are many women out in the world that know they cannot have children due to problems in their reproductive system or maybe her husband has problems. But they want children. They want to have a family. But the only way that could ever possibly happen was if some girl who made a mistake had the heart and love for her child to bring it into the world and then let it go, knowing that it would be taken care of and happy.

All choices have consequnces.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her own body, BUT THAT LOGIC DOES NOT APPLY TO ABORTION! Abortion is not a choice that affects one's own body solely. Did you ever think that the developing body of human life being destroyed might be affected as well? That growing child may be physically dependent on the mother, but he/she IS NOT the mother herself! An aborted child is basically thrown under the bus as a mother makes a selfish and reactionary decision. What say did that child have in whether he/she lived as his/her death sentence was brutally pronounced by a self-centered caregiver? NONE.

Tea Leaf--What does the fact that abortion is a choice have to do with whether the government should have a say in it? Rape, murder, and armed robbery are all choices as well. Should the government be able to decide for us there? This kind of logic leads people into the realm of moral relativity, where nothing is right or wrong. What will happen to society once all moral walls come tumbling down? When commenting on the attitudes of Americans during the early days of the nation, French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville said this, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Currently, America is "ceasing to be good." If this loss of a moral compass continues, America will lose its standing in the world.

i.heart.doritos. said...

By definition born is the beginning of life. Therefore when the article says "the lives of 45 million unborn." it contradicts itself and is implying that abortions are not taking life because life does not begin until birth. It talks of Paulin's son with Down syndrome, good for her, truely. In all cases where the mother can take care of the child, i totally suport and encourage the raising of the child. However, if the mother is incapable then it is her choice. People suggest adoption, and yes it definatly is an option, there are thousands of children in sub-standard care because of these acts. As more and more children are put up for adoption, less are being addopted. Its not fair to the children to sit in a foster home wondering why their parents couldnt have kept them. For all of those who dont believe that abortion is moral, then simply dont do it; dont push your beliefs on others, its not your place.

What if? said...

I'm really glad you like doritos. Show a little love to children too, huh? It isn't right for a mother to force her belief that she "isn't ready" or "can't give her child a good life." What if a single mother has a child and then loses her job? Does she have the right to kill her child then? Your Malthusian arguments are toothless. We have no right to decide what is a worthwhile life and what is not.

Anonymous said...

haha wow. "It's okay for a mother to take her child's life!"


nice...I mean great parenting skills. When you think about it in that perspective how does abortion make you feel after reading that...because that is pretty much what everyone that is for abortion is saying...just fyi.

Anonymous said...

Abortion doesn't necessarily have much to do with what a woman will do with her body. It's about another person's life. Yes i agree that abortion may be a way to control the population a little bit. But its still wrong. Some women make mistakes. If they are as severe as getting pregnant they should have to learn from it. As teenagers we are taught to deal with the consequences. And like funky monkey said, adoption could be an option. Just killing a baby is wrong. I've heard that the women who go through an abortion have many mental and emotional issues afterwards. Would someone rather raise a child and create a new life, maybe one that will change the world, or live with the guilt that you just killed someone before they saw what glorious things we see today?

Anonymous said...

I disagree with tea leaf's comment:

"Say for example a teenage girl decides to have sex, and she gets pregnant. She should have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body."

If it is a woman's choice to have sex, she is informed of the results of having sex, correct? So if she is willing to have sex in the first place, then she should take full responsibility to face the consequences of sex, also known as pregnancy. Do you really think it is moral and ethical to end a life for a person's lack of responsibility? I agree with funky monkey on the ADOPTION choice. There are millions of couples waiting in line to adopt a child of their own because of their inability to have one.

Anonymous said...

I.Heart.Doritos, do you think that those children in foster care wish that they were dead? I don't know any foster children, but you can go ask them if you want, but I think I have a pretty good guess at what their answers might be. Abortion denies preborns the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It denies them the right to be able to decide if they want to have a shot at life. Think of everyone you know, everything you've done, and what you've become. What if you never were able to experience them, all for "a woman's right to choose"? This is about more than personal or religious beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Tea Leaf, it's not her body! It's a baby. It is a REAL LIVE human being.
If I told you that you should never have been born, you'd be insulted, correct? That's because that you feel you have the right to live. So how is that different from the babies that you want to murder? Don't they deserve that right as well? Mothers don't have the right do take that away from them either.

Anonymous said...

this article is well written
but there is something vital you must remember
when you are in the position of an unplanned pregnancy(speaking from experience) what do you think the first thing that enters your mind is...i promise you its not joy