Up until this election, abortion has never really entered my realm of thinking on electing a candidate. I didn’t think it mattered much. Roe v. Wade was what it was, and what was done was done. Story closed – it shouldn’t matter what an individual candidate’s stands were. One might even say that a “pro-choice” stance would be more congruent with my “free agency” model that I’m championing. However, I have always believed that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, not because it allowed abortions, but because it took the matter out of the hands of the states. The citizens of the state should have the free agency to determine what is legal in their state or not. Now, not only does Senator Obama want to uphold Roe v. Wade, but pretty much stops at nothing to ensure that the decision’s long reaching tentacles extend even further – to babies outside the womb. Here’s how I see everything playing out. If John McCain were to be elected, and even if he got to appoint a couple of the most conservative judges he could find, and even if by some miracle, they reversed Roe v Wade in part or in whole, little would change in this country. Most states have legal abortions, or they would quickly adopt them. However, if Obama was elected and, with the party’s most liberal individuals as leaders, it is likely he would get very liberal, activist judges (as Senator Biden pointed out was important), and it is highly likely that Roe v Wade could become even more far-reaching, extending to infants born alive and other areas where the general populace agrees that the “right” to an abortion should not cover. This is scary to me. And as a side note, why is it so difficult to determine when life begins? We measure when life ends on the other end of the spectrum when we can no longer detect brainwaves and there is no longer a heartbeat. Doesn’t it seem reasonable to measure when life begins when both of those things can be detected?
Winters Kids
Just a little update about what in the world we're doing these days…
Wow Karli, I really appreciate this post, especially as a doctoral candidate of medicine! I’ve never made that connection to measuring time of birth as we so decisively measure time of death.
Karli, did you read the article by Russel M. Nelson in this month’s Ensign? It was on abortion, I thought it was FANTASTIC.
I love the way you state about measuring life the same way we measure death. You MUST get this word out. However, I am still pro-choice. I don’t EVER want the gov involved in my body……….and the church is NOT anti abortion as they allow them in certain circumstances which I agree with.
I think the words “Pro-Choice” are misleading. We always have a choice. If it infringes on another person’s right to life, then it should be ILLEGAL. A person can still choose abortion but if it’s under a situation of inconvience, it should be illegal, because it infringes on the right of anther person to live. We could say we’re pro-murder, pro-rape, or whatever… a person can always choose to do those things. What I’m talking about is how we determine what is legal or illegal and therefore punishable through the law of the land. Maybe Pro-life could also be stated as Pro-consequence, or pro-justice, or something similar that shows the act of taking responsibility for ones actions.
Good points on all counts. Always appreciate seeing things thru others eyes…………..I use the word ‘pro-choice’ because that is what is out there that explains a position I suppose. I will have to re-think that ‘choice’ of words for sure! It’s certainly a hot button for all of us and we all feel strongly about our positions. Thank you for sharing yours!