The debate over abortion is one that has a long, and even gruesome history. In this debate, there is no wishy-washy side, or people who go "eh, I really don't know where I stand on this topic." Everyone is strongly, and firmly either pro-life, or pro-choice. And ever since the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the country, and more specifically its laws, have leaned pro-choice. Even though the debate is still as fresh and fierce as ever.
Yesterday, January 22, 2013, marked the 40th anniversary (or as I have now dubbed it, the Over-the-Hill Anniversary {since we so easily equate all things 40 and over, as over the hill}) of Roe v. Wade and has again brought abortion to the limelight of media news again, with opinions running wild. Included here is a CNN article that talks about the history of the debate, landmark decisions, rulings, and actions that have taken place in the years before and after Roe v. Wade. That article is:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/index.html
I am not a HUGE CNN fan, as their views lean a little differently than mine, but I do like reading the opinions and articles of the other side, whether I agree or not. This article, however, tends to focus more on the events, whether good for pro-choice or pro-life, with little, or any opinions thrown into it. Therefore, I feel it is a great article to read, just to see the history of what goes behind this debate.
Like stated earlier, pro-choice has won in recent years, pretty much ever since Roe v. Wade. I do not believe in the legalization of abortion. But have to try to consider where the side is coming from. Supporters have always argued that it is a woman's body and it is not the governments decision to regulate what they should do with it (I feel the same debate is coming up again in the gun control debate that is fiercely running wild in our nation after the events of Newtown, CT. Is it the government's right to strictly control our ability to the right to bear arms? However, that issue is a whole other concept to tackle.). In the same notion, is it the governments right to control and tell a woman what to do with her body? They argue that it is her decision to decide what she does and does not with her body. Not that of the government. The saying popular with many from my generation who are pro-choice (and it could have been popular with others) is "Decisions about my body should not be made by old white men who have no idea what it is to be a woman." They defend that it is their body, that it is their right to choose what they do with it. And if I have to look at it as being a legal entity in our country, I have to look at it as at least women are getting it done more safely than before. However, that does not mean that I agree with it.
I now have to come to the point of being pro-life, and why I believe it is so wrong. Abortion does not just deal with the life and body of the woman, but the life and body of the human being growing inside. How can one, morally and knowingly opt to kill another human being. Isn't that the mind set of murders? Yes the government has stated and ruled, with scientific backing, that life cannot be sustained outside of the womb until the 3rd trimester, that is why the law is limited to abortions only up until that point. But this logic I cannot grasp my mind around. This states that since a baby is not able to survive outside the womb until the 3rd trimester, then it is okay to remove it before then. It is unable to sustain life on its own so therefore, it is not alive. How can science say this? How can they claim a human baby in the womb not alive, based on it not being about to survive alone, but can call a parasite alive, even though its whole existence is based on surviving based on a host? Remove a parasite from the host, the parasite is dead. To me this is so backwards in its thinking that it is mind-boggling to me. To go further, a babies heartbeat is recognized as earlier as the 12 weeks. Isn't a beating heart the definition of human life we go by? We can be brain dead, and comatose, but until we flat-line on the monitors that our heart is no long beating, we are not pronounced dead.
This is just my opinion. We are all entitled to our own, but with the debate surfacing again on the anniversary, I thought that each side should be mentioned. Grant it, this just covers the surface of the issue. Whole books have been written on this, and sometimes do not get much deeper than I have. I do not want to tell a woman she does not have the right to what happens to her own body, but just want to raise the question, what about the right to the body and life of the baby inside? Is his/her right so easily thrown to the waste side because he/she cannot speak up?
Theologically speaking, this boils down to what we believe is right and wrong? Is it right to take away a life? Or is it wrong? Is it right to take away a woman's choice? Or is it wrong? People will continue to go back and forth on this issue for generations to come, and most likely come out with no winners. But when I stand before God at the day of judgment and I have to defend my moral thoughts, I know where I stand. The question is, where do you stand?
-Ryan
