Pro-Lifers are opposed to legalized abortion - period.
Pro-Choicers demand legalized abortion - period.
The debate (nay, argument) between the two sides might be easier and more enlightening if the subject matter didn't elicit so much passion. As a people, we do better -- and treat each other better -- when our argumentative wrangling is over non-abrasive topics like Did the Patriots deflate those balls, and did Brady know?
Abortion doesn't lend itself easily to friendly debate. Both sides of the abortion debate are austere and demand strict adherence to their often extreme views. Extremism, though, isn't about finding equitable solutions. Extremism is about berating your detractors and getting your way, period. No compromise, no surrender. The line of demarcation is clear and impenetrable.
Frankly, I see a problem with both sides of this argument. For me, it isn't a matter of being for or against abortion. For me, it is all about liberty and freedom, but....
I am pro-life (lowercase, meaning non-militant) in that the life of an unborn child is sacrosanct to me. If the mother's life is endangered or if rape was involved (although I would argue for the child in the case of rape -- the child did nothing wrong), then medical alternatives should be available, including abortion.
The debate has shifted. Now it isn't really about abortion yea or nay. Now it's about when life begins. A red herring involving enough nebulous, self-serving pseudo-scientific drivel to give a law-professor nightmares of logical fallacies. If not so serious, the debate over when life begins might be as ludicrous as Deflategate. Except at least air pressure in footballs can be tested. (Which begs the question: Is there a Heisenberg Uncertainty involved such that testing the pressure changes the pressure?)
Again, I am pro-life, but I prefer people to choose life. I prefer there not be laws favoring one side of this argument dictating the behavior of otherwise good people and creating a new criminal class. We need a kind of legislative Occam's Razor so that only the necessary facts are considered. There are, indeed, too many variables in the abortion debate for quick resolution. But variables are the things of which debates are made. That clear line of demarcation kills constructive debate and is the purveyor of war.
The strategist on the Pro-Choice side of the line is Planned Parenthood (PP). It commands a mighty army. Many of the soldiers in that army are extremists, to be sure. Many of the soldiers in the Pro-Life army are extremists, too. You can't overlook the non-sequitur of killing an abortion doctor because you believe in the sanctity of life. Neither side is promoting debate.
PP is in the news right now because of three (as of this writing) videos showing what is purported to be discussions about harvesting and selling human fetal body parts. Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claims the videos are selective, heavily edited, and the person behind them, David Daleiden, is “part of the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement that has been behind the bombing of clinics, the murder of doctors in their homes, and in their churches.” Assuming all of that is true doesn't detract from the possible veracity of the information disclosed, though.
Assume that the PP people on the videos are just crass and not criminal. Assume Cecile Richards' claim that PP broke no laws is accurate, and that it is acceptible for PP to get money for the body parts. [Federal law prohibits "any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” 42 U.S. Code 289g. But valuable consideration "does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." 42 U.S.Code 289e.]
What bothers me is that an atmosphere promoting a larger abortion client base may disregard the best interests of the client -- all in the name of money. A devious motive can easily creep into the best of intentions corrupting the enterpirse and the people involved. Legal money can become ill-gotten gains, and "reasonable payments" can accrue to big loot. So my question is this: Is Planned Parenthood more focused on promoting abortions than in helping their clients find the best outcome for their personal situation? Who really should we be looking at here, the Center for Medical Progress for possible violations of privacy laws, or Planned Parenthood for promoting abortions because of financial gain? My answer is both.
 |
| California Attorney General Kamala Harris will review whether the nonprofit organization behind controversial Planned Parenthood videos violated state law, her office said in a letter Friday. |
No comments:
Post a Comment