When lawmakers are given the task of creating legislation, one would hope that they are creating legislation built upon reality. Reality, ie, facts and statistics and situations that have occurred. Having ideals is fine and dandy, but if you are logical, you can understand that reality is different from an idealized world and therefore legislation should be in tune with reality and not based on ideals.
Ideals are often times interlaced with 'morality', which is sometimes mistakenly interpreted as 'religion'. Morality is defined as "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". Religion is defined as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" or "A particular system of faith and worship". If you are logical, you can understand that it is very possible that people without a religion can and do have morals.
If you happen to be a 'person of faith', you have beliefs based on ideals. Obviously, these ideals are important to you because you base your life and actions on them. It is highly likely that you would approve if 100% of the other people on Earth agreed with all of your ideals. However, you KNOW that this is not true and that other people have different beliefs about the world. If you are logical, you know that if you want to continue to hold your beliefs, you have to allow others the same ability.
Now, here's a biggie. Laws for citizens of a secular country must be fair to all citizens, and cannot promote a standard of life built off of the ideals of religion. Laws usually are based on morality, but again, morality is not tied to religion. If you are logical, you understand that the elected officials are to act on behalf of the groups in their jurisdiction, USING REALITY as the driving force, even if the elected officials have their own set of ideals they wish were reality. Told you it was a doozie. Why is that? Oh, because it's actually more of an ideal! IDEALLY, elected officials would act on the behalf of everyone in their jurisdiction and not just the people that think like them.
In fact, the very thought that a person should make decisions based on logic, rather than on emotions, religion or any other 'reason'/explanation, is itself an ideal. See, it sucks. Here I am, thinking logic will win, when logic is MY ideal. Logic is not always a reality. As Voltaire said "Common sense is not so common". Le sigh.
So, what's a person to do? Well, if you are part of the GOP, you create a platform that is based on ideals that do not correlate to reality. Apparently the lot of them will be gathering soon to create official statements on what their platform is, but here is the current GOP platform as related to abortion, thanks to this link.
THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE
Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion, permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by exacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives and [<---Repub typo] abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions - gender discrimination in its most lethal form - and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a revision of federal law 42 U.S.C. 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
We also salute the many states that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose live, [<--Repub typo again] and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
Okay, I'm going to do my non-partisan 'best' to examine the ideals present in this statement as well as the fallacies present because of reality. [cracks knuckles]
Ideal: "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
Reality: I can see how they would have to make an Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because Section 1 to the Fourteenth Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."(bold emphasis my own).
- Fetuses have not been born, so the Representatives would need to wave a magic wand and write up some fancy words to make it seem like a zygote/fetus/undeveloped-future-human-that-is-unable-to-exist-outside-the-womb is as important as fully developed homo sapiens living outside the womb, you know, the already born. (And that its rights supersede that of the mother/vessel of birth...gag)
- Besides, the possible implementation of such an idea as 'rights of a fetus' is so convoluted that it would be ridiculous to even attempt. Section 2 to the Fourteenth Amendment says "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." So if a fetus is now counted as a person, despite not having a birthday, at what time in the development of the embryo is its 'personhood' tallied so it can be allocated proper representation? And can you really have representatives for unborn people who don't even have a Social Security number or a birth certificate? Furthermore, if the fetus does not reach a birth and is miscarried, how do you document its death when it has yet to be born? Is the mother charged in the miscarriage or is it deemed 'accidental death'? You may scoff and say I'm being obtuse, but if you are going to count an unborn creature as a person, you are literally counting your eggs before they hatch. And why? What's the rush?
- The call that "protections apply to unborn children" or demand that undeveloped humans be treated as equals to the "persons born" is based on "the sanctity of human life and ... individual right to life" which stems from religious beliefs and therefore is not a fit, logical, nor sound basis for an amendment for the Constitution that governs people of varying or no religious beliefs. The implementation of such a demand does not benefit society, nor is it necessary, but is a knee-jerk reaction and a legislative attempt of religious people to force others to heed their morals or be punished. (Isn't God's surefire punishment enough? Or do you not trust your God to dole out the punishment for abortion?) The idea that you hold human life sacred ("sanctity of human life") is a religious notion that has no place in a government document. I had to be born first before my number was added to the population, so all those other fetuses just have to wait too.
- P.S. Using the Declaration of Independence term "self-evident" in reference to your claim of "the sanctity of human life" is religious pandering. Sure, a few lines later it mentions "Creator", but really, it says "their Creator" but it doesn't say which Creator AND it does say "all men" so either it's a sexist document or we are supposed to infer that men means homo sapien both male and female AND that "Creator" can mean Lord Brahma, the Hindu God of Creation as well. You know, freedom to religion and all that. See The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in which the U.S. government is prohibited from preferring one religion over another. I SHOULD be able to stop here because a ban on abortion is clearly a preference for Catholic/Christian-based religions and is therefore, including the proposed amendment, wait for it..... UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But I won't stop here because I'm only two sentences in to the GOP platform on abortion!
Please note: I DID stop there Thursday night and now, Sunday night, I'm gonna hack at it a little more. But maybe a little quicker this time, since this is already really freaking long.
Ideal: "We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
Reality: This is an admission that they will stack the Judicial Court with religiously-biased judges. We all know that proclaiming the "sanctity of innocent human life" is thinly veiled wording trying to assert that fetuses are worth the amount of legislation conservative religious politicians are saying there are, when really it is an assertion that they, the mostly-male religious conservatives want to punish women who don't make the same choices they do. AND WHAT THE HELL ARE "TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES"?! This phrase is utterly disgusting because it tries to insinuate that this nation is built upon only one tradition and that all others are lacking in their worth. Their thought is one man, one woman and their biological progeny. But if you look at statistics, that 'family' is in the minority. As reported in Singled Out, in 1990, only 26% of households were comprised of married parents and children. So when Republicans keep up their war-cry of "traditional family values" they fail to see the numbers, the diverse composition of REAL families and the falseness of the idea that every family of mom, dad and kids that THINK the same way as the conservative religious Republicans who want to eliminate the values of the other 74% of families that don't fit the mold.
Ideal: "We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions - gender discrimination in its most lethal form - and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain;"
Reality: However, they DO call for legislation to ban same-sex marriages which causes pain for born children, ie, legally consenting adults, which is gender discrimination in its most obvious form AND based on religious beliefs which should have nothing to do with Civil Rights when deciding which adults can sign a marriage certificate. Duh.
Ideal: "We also salute the many states that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health protective clinic regulation."
Reality: What this means, is that they don't believe women are capable of understanding that a fetus is a developing human so they really need to undergo a medically unnecessary probing to shame them and cause them physical pain and financial damage. Um, I'm pretty sure women seeking abortions are fully aware that the fetus will develop into a human, hence getting the abortion for whatever reason THEY decided while considering their options. And what the hell do the Republicans mean by "health protective clinic regulation"?
Ideal: "and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy."
Reality: Wait, what now? So, AS LONG AS women agree to have a child, you will support her because she does what you find "moral". But you want to criminalize abortion, which means you will be penalizing "women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy" because she chose an option with which you don't agree.
To all of the above, I say: PISS OFF. You are not allowed to create laws, appoint judges and just generally be snide asshats all on the basis of religion. This is a nation built on the backs of people from all walks of life, all nations, all creeds or no creeds. Just because there are large numbers of you who have gotten into office because of your supporters does not make it right, nor does it make it constitutional. Your ideals should be kept to your private and personal lives, meant to guide you in making decisions about your daily lives, NOT when creating legislation for a nation full of people who will be affected by your attempts at blanket morality. You CANNOT make others part of your religion by writing it into law. You will be endangering the women who seek abortions by creating out-of-touch policies that are beneficial only to your moral righteousness and your ego. Most people will tell you murder is wrong and that's why it's illegal. But people are still murdered, and the murderers are punished accordingly. A murder is quantifiable damage. An abortion is not in the same field.
No, abortion is not an awesome thing. But the women undergoing that procedure know it. Making abortions illegal will solve nothing and will create more problems. Those people who are anti-abortion will try to make any justification for the woman to birth the baby, whether she keeps it or not. "It's only nine months out of your life" "Put the baby up for adoption." "I'll take your baby!" Well, that sounds nice, but no, it's not just nine months. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, sometimes to her medical detriment, so it's so nice of you to be concerned, but she's the one who has to live with the medical bills. Adoption? Yes, the 114,562 children in the U.S. and Puerto Rico waiting for adoption or fostering would LOVE to be adopted and for the "I'll take your baby!" people, please refer to that last number.
P.S. If I was having an abortion, I would find it more responsible to abort the child than to risk that it would end up aging out of foster care without a home (or worse.... molestation, etc.) or possibly being raised by a religious conservative family of "traditional family values" which include condemning and endangering women they will never knowingly meet. And I don't need a "mandatory waiting period" to decide that: 12 years of Catholic schooling and at least 9 years outside of the system have allowed me plenty of time to see the Reality of Ideals. Boo.Yah.
 |
| A LAW TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL, in accordance with the tenets, beliefs, teachings, and/or ideals of certain religious groups, violates the clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution that state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and therefore, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. http://bit.ly/NEuQH2 |
No comments:
Post a Comment