 |
| Abortion laws must change to protect human life. |
We seem to have become a nation in which we no longer desire to pattern our lives and behaviors around our existing laws, but always want to change the laws to justify a pattern of how we want to live and behave.
We invent terms in an effort to make our cause seem believable or just. A good example of this inventive spirit are the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both of which are highly detested by this writer. These four simple words have actually divided a nation and there seems to be no end to that division. So, just who are these people?
The "Pro-Choice" Abortion Philosophy
This group feels very strongly that a "woman" should have the "right", under the law, to kill the baby inside her if she believes the baby is causing damage to her health, interfering with her career, is the wrong sex, is causing a strain on her relationship, is an unwanted child, or any other reason of convenience. This group also feels that the woman has the "right" to keep her baby if that is her "choice". So, basically, this group will vote either way.
The "Pro-Life" Abortion Philosophy
This group feels very strongly that since "life" is the basic right given to all of us by our Constitution and since a baby, even while inside the womb, is a human being at the very beginning of "life", killing that baby is wrong and should not be legal under our laws. Many people in this group also feel that a woman's medical care, while pregnant, should totally be controlled by her doctor and not by attorneys and the courts, since many times medical complications will arise requiring tough decisions by the mother, the father, and the doctor.
If you have ever done any reserach at all on the topics of "life stages", "science of life", "biology of life" or any similar subject, you already know that every legitimate source will tell you that the earliest stages of a human life begin in a woman's womb. To disagree with that biological fact would go against every biology book, every medical journal, every scientific paper and every lecture on human life that has ever been published.
So, what is this long standing debate about in the first place. Who gets pregnant in the United States and who actually gets abortions?
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in the year 2004, 38% of all pregnancies were to women under the age of 25. The CDC goes further to say, according to the informaton provided to them by the participating states, there were 6.4 million pregnancies in that same year. Of these 6.4 million pregnancies, 4.1 million resulted in live births, 1.2 million resulted in induced abortions and 1.0 million in fetal losses.
(Source: Centers for Disease Control-"Pregnancy Rate Drops for U. S. Women Under Age 25". April 14, 2008)
In the same news release referenced above, the CDC stated -
"This latest pregnancy outcome report finds that there was little change in births and fetal loss numbers between 1990 and 2004. However, abortions fell 24 percent over this time period".
So why do you suppose the abortion rate fell 24% from 1990 to 2004?
Of the 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004, 2.8 million (45%) occurred to unmarried women and 35% of these pregnancies were terminated by abortion procedures. There were 3.5 million pregnancies to married women and only 6% were terminated by abortion. (Source: CDC)
The following information was obtained from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services:
- In 1990, out of every 1,000 teenagers ages 15-17, 77 or almost 8% of them were pregnant.
- In 1990, out of every 1,000 teenagers ages 18-19, 168 or almost 17% of them were pregnant.
- In 2004, the pregnancy rate for the 15-17 age group dropped to 42 per 1,000 (46% drop).
- In 2004, the pregnancy rate for the 18-19 age group dropped to 119 per 1,000 (29% drop).
According to a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the National Centers for Health Statistics, during the years 1995 to 2002, the number of teenagers who had never had sex declined significantly, however, the number who had used contraception rose from 71% to 83%.
A rational person must believe that during the years prior to 1990, our teenagers were using abortion as a form of birth control and it would be a very important step in the right direction if both sides of the debate could at least agree on that proven fact. And if we could ever come to terms on that, why would it not be possible to agree that the killing of an innocent baby should never be used as a form of birth control? There are just too many other means of birth control that are safer, not as barbaric, and would solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
The current educational programs being offered in our schools which teach abstinence and pregnancy prevention seem to be working, so why would it not make more sense to invest more of our tax dollars in educating our teenagers, rather that sending that money to the abortion clinics?
Our Supreme Court, in its decision that a fetus was not a "person" and therefore had no right of protection, has taken a giant step out on that proverbial limb by inventing a haphazard definition of "life". In Justice Blackmun's "Opinion of the Court" in Roe v. Wade, he states -
"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words." It seems that even a Supreme Court Justice could understand that all of our lives began in the fetal stage. If the fetus had died, we would have died. The two are not separate entities. What we are today and what we were then are one and the same. Justice Blackmun also said this - "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." and yet the decision was rendered based on a woman's "right to privacy".In researching all the different areas of the abortion topic from women's rights, to equal rights, to abortion rights, I found it quite interesting that in making up all these definitions, no court or organization has presented a definition for "woman".
Since the courts give a "woman" the right to have an abortion, wouldn't defining the term "woman" seem to be important? After all a 15 or 16 year old girl cannot drive unaccompanied, cannot vote, cannot undergo medical or surgical treatment without parental consent, cannot get a tattoo on her own, cannot go to an x-rated movie, so do we consider this group of people "children" or "women"?
I am quoting once again from Justice Blackmun's "Opinion of the Court" in Roe v. Wade -
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."We have somewhat of a dilemma here. If we consider a 15 or 16 year old a "child" and not a "woman" then according to the Supreme Court's logic, this "child" would actually have no legal right to obtain an abortion. Remember, the court started this discussion on the stages of life, by mentioning the "fetus".
We must help our kids understand that if they choose to engage in "unprotected" sex, there are consequences. They must also understand that even though an abortion may be available, there may also be physical and psychological consequences to that "choice" as well.
Teaching our children to value human life and to take some responsibility for their actions can save millions of lives, including the one who no longer needs an abortion.
I realize there are other ideas and opinions on this topic. That's what makes this country so great. Please join me on LinkedIn and Google+.
As a freelance writer, I write on many other topics outside government and politics. If you need some help writing those high quality blog posts, you can get in touch over here. - Ken
