A was alerted to FOCA by a friend of mine on Facebook. FOCA is the Freedom of Choice Act. For those, like me, who don't know what this Act is, I will sum up. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled to support the ban on partial-birth abortions in Gonzales vs. Carhart. (For information on partial-birth abortions click here.) In response to this Supreme Court ruling, FOCA was introduced in two separate bills in both the House and the Senate. The Act would effectively eliminate all state and federal restrictions on abortion. This law would supersede all other abortion laws and would nulify the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Different versions of this Act have been introduced in the past thirty years, but none have passed. Although I have not been able to find the bill on any current legislative calendars, it is certain that it is not going away. I will be keeping my ear to the ground and will post if I hear that it has been re-introduced.
I realize that abortion is a controversial issue and many of my friends who may be reading this may not agree with my position. I understand and respect your right to disagree with me. In the past ten years I have read a lot about this issue on both sides and would like to respectfully share my thoughts with you, and all others who believe that a woman's right to choose is behind the abortion debate.
From what I have read, the pro-choice movement believes that abortion is a women's rights issue and a privacy issue. They have many good arguments about the abuse and degradation that women have experienced through the centuries relating to women's reproductive rights. Historically, women have had very few options relating to when or whether to have children. Recently, with the availability of birth control and birth options, conditions have improved considerably for women. Pro-choice advocates believe that abortion is another option for a woman. They argue that this option should not be removed because "some men in Washington" want to limit their choices. If a woman is opposed to abortion, they should be able to choose not to have one, but if a woman so chooses, she should be able to abort her pregnancy.
Having been through pregnancy twice, I can see the appeal of abortion. My second pregnancy was unplanned. We could not afford to have the baby. I was sick, depressed, and caring for a child who was less than a year old. Many other women are in much worse circumstances. Some have been raped. Some are barely more than children themselves. Some face serious and expensive health complications for themselves, or their unborn child. Abortion advocates seek to help women in difficult circumstances to improve their situations by providing them with as many options as possible.
I hope I have presented a strong case for the pro-choice supporters. Most of them are as well-meaning as those who are pro-life. However, I believe they are wrong.
In society, we have laws. Laws and law enforcement composed of all levels from local police stations, to the President, Supreme Court, and Congress, are essential for members of society to live together in harmony. The rights of all people must be considered in the creation and enforcement of law. When the rights of a group of people are disregarded, injustice results. History is full of such examples. Usually a society justifies such injustice by the process of dehumanization.
All human beings have rights. That is universally accepted. Of those who are not human, the ethical ground becomes shaky. If a society seeks to discriminate against a group of people, they must dehumanize them first. Nazi Germany succeeded in dehumanizing the Jews. That is how the Germans were able to do the horrible things they did to the Jews. In their minds, the Jews were not human.
In our society, when a person breaks the law and violates the rights of another person, it is everyone's business. Through due process of law, the crime is analysed, judge and jury are assigned, lawyers are appointed, and a verdict is reached. This is all done in the public eye. Privacy of the individual is important, but there are times when that privacy must be sacrificed in order to see that justice is done. That is why we have subpoenas and search warrants. The idea that if someone robs a bank or murders another person that it is their business and that law enforcement should not get involved would be passed off as ludicrous.
The pro-choice movement's premise that abortion is about a woman's choice, that it is a private matter not to be interfered with by law enforcement, is based on one assumption: that the unborn child is not human. If the unborn child were human, the laws would apply as usual. Those who push the pro-choice position are constantly deflecting the attention from the unborn child and onto the mother. They tout the importance of the availability of "safe abortions." Safe for who? Not the unborn child. They talk about the "right to choose." Whose right to choose? Not the unborn child. In assuming that the unborn child is not human, they successfully dehumanize the unborn and therefore justify the discrimination and mass murder of a segment of society.
There are those who continue to insist that the unborn are not human when it is obvious to the most untrained eye that they are. Before modern medicine and sonograms, it is understandable that there would be a debate about when life begins. Now that there is sophisticated equipment that can show us clear pictures of developing fetuses that are clearly human, we have no excuse.
When I went in for my first sonogram with my second pregnancy, I was only nine weeks pregnant, and yet I could clearly see a head, a body, and a pair of arms and legs wiggling on the screen. I could have had a legal abortion, but I would have known that I was terminating the life of another human being. Layne may not have had a name, a medical record, or a social security number, but he was a human child. I knew it, and God knew it.
I showed my three year old son a picture of a fetus that was twelve weeks in utero, and asked him what it was. He said, "A baby!" If a three year old knows that a fetus is a human baby, what is wrong with America? We are killing our most vulnerable members of society with no questions asked. A society that tolerates and fosters injustice does not prosper. Well-meaning people who espouse the pro-choice position need to look very closely at the assumptions being made. Don't let the abortion industry muddy the water. The real question is not about a woman's right to choose, but whether or not an unborn child is human. If an unborn child is not human, a woman has a right to choose to abort a pregnancy. If the unborn child is human, a woman has no such right any more than she has a right to end the life of her three month old, two year old, or ten year old.
I have the greatest sympathy with those who are pregnant and need help, but abortion is not an option. It hurts infinitely more than it helps. Instead, well-meaning people in the pro-choice and pro-life sides must unite to make the world a better place for both mother and unborn child. We should never pass off the life of another as insignificant when we look at these issues.
For pictures of fetuses in
utero click
here.
Posts
