There are three candidates running for Congress in my district: a Republican, an Independent and a Libertarian. Thanks to websites like Project Vote Smart, I can see that the Libertarian candidate, Stuart Bain, has the most in common with me on the issues. I even met Mr. Bain recently at a Pride event.
Unfortunately, none of the candidates are with me on a very important issue: women's right to terminate a pregnancy. So I wrote a letter to Mr. Bain, explaining (to a Libertarian!) why this is such an important right:
Dear Mr. Bain,
It was a pleasure to shake your hand at the Pride in the Park event in Roanoke. Some politicians would pay lip service to supporting LGBTQ issues while avoiding being so visually associated with that community. I respect that you are openly supportive of us.
I also appreciate that you were willing to honestly answer the twelve position questions posed by Project Vote Smart. But I was surprised and dismayed to see that you do not support women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I am perplexed as to how you can reconcile such a position with libertarian values.
Imagine for a moment, that a child is dying. His only chance to live is to be connected to you to receive a continuous blood transfusion. For the better part of the next year, you would be attached to this child. You would have to alter what you do, what you eat, where you go, your future plans. If you are having any financial, relational, or health difficulties, they will make this task all the more difficult, if not impossible. If you chose to take on this burden, you would be hailed as a hero.
Now imagine that you are forced to do this against your will. You would fight for the right of any man to live free of such drastically life-altering servitude, even if it meant the life of a self-aware child. Yet, you would force women to endure it for the sake of something that is not even capable of conscious thought. You will notice that the women who do choose to endure this (as opposed to the women who consciously choose to become pregnant) are viewed as victims of their own poor choices rather than heroes.
Women are not incubators; they are human beings who deserve the same freedom of body and agency that men do. Abortion is not about terminating a life; it is about terminating a pregnancy. No human being should be enslaved to keeping another human alive. Choosing to do so is a laudable act. But choosing not to is a fundamental right of agency. Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, it does not have the right to usurp the body of another human being.
There are many circumstances under which a woman might find herself pregnant against her will (regardless of whether she consented to sex) and in which allowing the pregnancy to continue will result in more harm to life than aborting it. For one thing, pregnancy is not without risk of complications. Women can and do still die giving birth. No one is obligated to risk their lives to save another—except pregnant women, apparently.
Children may also be adversely affected physically, mentally, and/or emotionally by the circumstances of the mother's pregnancy. Arbitrarily bringing all conceived life into the world is no more moral than it is sensible.
The human embryo does not deserve more consideration than the life of the mother. It does not even merit equal consideration. Yes, it has the potential to grow into a fully formed human. If every embryo has a right to life, than so do every sperm and egg—making the use of birth control, masturbation, and even abstinence from sex, equivalent to murder.
The term “pro-life” is a misnomer. To be pro-choice IS to be in favor of life. Abortion is no more a desirable goal than an organ removal or an amputation. But it is a necessary option.
I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter.
The Pro-Choice Action Network has an excellent article that goes into more detail on the fallacies of the anti-choice position.
Thank you for emailing me. I support Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life act. In a nutshell, it says this:
1) Technically, life begins at conception.
2) Life is worthy of protection.
3) It is not up to the federal government, but rather up to the states, to decide if and how they choose to protect that life.
As for some of the unique cases you mention (rape, incest, protect the life of the mother), you will see that I answered "Yes, it should be legal."
I hope that clarifies some of my answers.
In liberty,
-- Stuart Bain
This is obviously a form response. It doesn't address the issues I brought up, and addresses some I didn't. He quotes Ron Paul's opinion on the beginning of life like it has any authority or basis in fact. The hell of it is, there's no other candidate in my region that is pro-choice. And Bain is the only one who supports LGBTQ rights. Politics: the art of getting screwed by the least unsavory person.
Posts
I agree! Though I think there should be some kind of punishment for people who abuse it. I am ignorant as to how far along woman must be to make it an abortion, but if someone does not take precautions and gets pregnant out of stupidity then they should still be able to get the abortion but be charged money, and maybe forced to go to a class or something. lol
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of women who get abortions do not do so as some form of after-the-fact birth control. Many women who get abortions are either teenagers (for whom abstinence-only education was a bitter failure; the class people need to take is REAL sex ed) or women nearing menopause who do not feel able to give birth/care for a child.
ReplyDeleteOther reasons include, but are not limited to, rape, incest, financial burden, abuse (e.g. partner poking holes in condoms), lack of support (e.g. shunning or shaming from family/community), health issues, disability, or depression.
Having an abortion is a big deal. No woman does it casually. The law differs from state to state on how many weeks along a woman can be and still receive an abortion. In every state, the cut-off limit is well before the fetus would be viable outside the mother's body.
A prominent reason women pursue abortion is a lack of ability to care for a child financially. If anyone wants to ban abortion, they'd better be prepared to pay for a hell of a lot more welfare.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*Repost* (Don't know why you can't edit posts >.< )
ReplyDeleteNow women who pursue abortion is a lack of ability to care for a child financially, why did they get pregnant?
I'm just saying that if your right of mind, one should consider even if on protection whether one can raise a child and if not then no sex for you.
Unless it's rape, abuse, incest, Teenager, the others made a choice to have sex which is an act to get pregnant, yet again I believe they should still be able to get the abortion but in those cases it's seems to me there should be some kind of something to make them go hey I was stupid and shouldn't do that again.
But then again the whole experience might be bad enough to do that. :? But if not the four reasons I listed or things like them where it's out of your hands, tax payers and health practices should not have to pay for said abortions.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a teen to twentyish young adult, I thought that having an abortion was a sensible option for an unwanted pregnancy. After becoming zealously religious, I came to the opinion that abortion is murder, no two ways about it. Now that I am atheist and of the belief that we are a type of animal, the highest on the chain, but animal none the less, I have to reassess my former beliefs in the light of my new awareness. My opinion is evolving as my understanding evolves. So to sum up my current state of belief, it is, as in all things, a libertarian/atheist view. That is that everyone should have a right to do what they want as long as it does not cause harm to anyone else. Some may argue that terminating a pregnancy does just that. But I think Pavalier’s comments explain why there is more to it than that. And from the atheist point of view, this is the one life we get so it’s very important that we are able to make our own choices in how that life is lived. We should not all be held to a religious moral standard that we do not share. I do think that for our animal group that being good, supportive neighbors is the logical way to ensure our personal and collective survival (as well as enabling us to live safer, happier lives which is an innate desire we have). We are also talking about terminating the life of something that is no more sentient than the animals we eat, in some ways even less so. Would that similarly extend to a fully formed child that has been given birth to? I would need to hear a thorough debate on that subject and give it some deep thought before I came to my own conclusion. It is definitely a subject worthy of much thought and debate before anyone rushes to conclusions or judgment. I do think that those who believe abortion is a right to exercise should be sensitive to those who feel that terminating that unborn life is murder and unjust. Both sides should work together to find a solution that allows everyone to exercise their own right to free will. Maybe the “pro-lifers” should put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and the “pro-choicers” should try to be as non-cavalier about abortion while still exercising their right to it. There are many sentient people out there of all ages that are living lives of horror of varying degrees. Maybe people should focus on alleviating their suffering; and in the meantime the medical community could come up with a better way of assuring that only those who want to be pregnant get pregnant. Like many of the problems this world faces today, I think there is a solution that is out there beyond money, religion, and politics. I think that if both sides can find respect and understanding for the other side, then the solution will follow.
ReplyDelete