Re-Examining The Abortion Topic
A Topic Revisited
I have gotten into
the habit of not posting more than one political-related post a week on
my blog. It helps keeps my blog from being overtly political. There has
been a backlog of other articles of interest that I've been working on.
As a result, I wanted to revisit this topic at another time. However,
with this hot-button issue exploding again, and the abortion topic will
be revisited, as its been covered on this blog previously (linked
below).
The Sanctity of Life is a worthy topic that demands deep exploration. I'm myself find abortion deplorable, but there was something that was bothering me. Whenever the topic about the Sanctity of Life was covered, it’s used exclusively in the abortion debate, but wasn't applied to any topics outside of it though. One becomes a witness to worthless catch slogans and sayings that would be forgotten 10 minutes after hearing them. It’s called "bumper sticker" content. There are misplaced priorities.
I believe that there is a rational way of approaching this issue. Often though, this isn't the case as often, many people let there emotions consume them in a unhealthy manner. Those who can't manage there emotions often go into overdrive and there personal judgement becomes clouded. They become so passionate that they will look for anything that will confirm there worldview, regardless of whether the information presented is factual or not. Facts, statistics, and science are pushed off by the side to rhetoric that's not often grounded in reality. Misinformation is passed of as validated fact.
I understand that people who a strong disdain for abortion. At the same time, things aren't black-and-white as they appear to be. There are a lot more unknown variables at play than what meets the eye. We become ignorant and self-righteous when we act like experts on the topic. Even I admit that I'm not a expert on the topic either. That's why I do this thing called research. A rational and civil approach to this issue won't happen until people put there emotions aside and approach the topic from a rational and logical standpoint. That involves research and understanding the topic from various perspectives. People have to stop treating there opinions as facts.
The Sanctity of Life is a worthy topic that demands deep exploration. I'm myself find abortion deplorable, but there was something that was bothering me. Whenever the topic about the Sanctity of Life was covered, it’s used exclusively in the abortion debate, but wasn't applied to any topics outside of it though. One becomes a witness to worthless catch slogans and sayings that would be forgotten 10 minutes after hearing them. It’s called "bumper sticker" content. There are misplaced priorities.
I believe that there is a rational way of approaching this issue. Often though, this isn't the case as often, many people let there emotions consume them in a unhealthy manner. Those who can't manage there emotions often go into overdrive and there personal judgement becomes clouded. They become so passionate that they will look for anything that will confirm there worldview, regardless of whether the information presented is factual or not. Facts, statistics, and science are pushed off by the side to rhetoric that's not often grounded in reality. Misinformation is passed of as validated fact.
I understand that people who a strong disdain for abortion. At the same time, things aren't black-and-white as they appear to be. There are a lot more unknown variables at play than what meets the eye. We become ignorant and self-righteous when we act like experts on the topic. Even I admit that I'm not a expert on the topic either. That's why I do this thing called research. A rational and civil approach to this issue won't happen until people put there emotions aside and approach the topic from a rational and logical standpoint. That involves research and understanding the topic from various perspectives. People have to stop treating there opinions as facts.
Healthy Dialogue And Rational Examination Of The Topic Needs To Happen First
There are many that
have a strong disdain for abortion, but yet, personally believe that
it's not up to them to dictate if one proceeds with a abortion. It's a
personal, private matter that is the choice that belongs to the person
in question, and not up to the government to dictate. One would thought
that anyone who would champion the cause of smaller government would
welcome the government's decision of not dictating there view on the
matter, and let those facing the decision make it on there own since it
is a private, personal matter that wasn't meant to be brought into the public spectacle. Public spectacle it becomes though.
However, those who believe that it's a private matter that they shouldn't dictate are labeled "abortion lovers" by many. Despite such declarations being inaccurate and offensive, such sayings such as "We love abortion", We're Pro-Abortion" and "Abortion is cool now" is often chanted by those above. Comments made in ignorance.
It's safe to say that the vast majority that fall into the choice camp never stated that they love abortions, promoted them, or think that they are cool. The only thing stated is that it's a decision belongs to those contemplating it. If one person decides to pursue it, then that's her prerogative. If she decides to have the baby, that's also her prerogative as well.
The morality of abortion isn't even the topic of the debate. The topic is whether it's a choice, not whether one is pro or against it. However, those ignorant on the topic will see that providing the choice and being pro-abortion as being one and the same. Despite what the emotionally charged will tell you, the fact is that it's possible to be morally pro-life while politically pro-choice at the same time. Many mothers have put this idea into practice by choosing to have there babies, but yet acknowledged that it was still a choice that was still there's to exercise, not the governments. This provides the basis of being Pro-Choice and endorsing the Sanctity of Life as well.
Unfortunately, political polarization has occurred, with many taking to extremes and providing no middle ground for rational examination. Whataboutism has entered the picture as well. The thoughts that are held by the extreme fringes of society as presented as the mainstream.
The current social climate promotes a very hostile environment. Until this hostile climate is addressed, a rational and healthy examination of the abortion topic can't occur. When one demonizes others based on stereotypes and preconceived biases, it only causes further division on the topic. Healthy dialogue can only occur when people stop there condemnations and demonetization of others. Only then can the topic be explored in a rational and civil manner.
However, those who believe that it's a private matter that they shouldn't dictate are labeled "abortion lovers" by many. Despite such declarations being inaccurate and offensive, such sayings such as "We love abortion", We're Pro-Abortion" and "Abortion is cool now" is often chanted by those above. Comments made in ignorance.
It's safe to say that the vast majority that fall into the choice camp never stated that they love abortions, promoted them, or think that they are cool. The only thing stated is that it's a decision belongs to those contemplating it. If one person decides to pursue it, then that's her prerogative. If she decides to have the baby, that's also her prerogative as well.
The morality of abortion isn't even the topic of the debate. The topic is whether it's a choice, not whether one is pro or against it. However, those ignorant on the topic will see that providing the choice and being pro-abortion as being one and the same. Despite what the emotionally charged will tell you, the fact is that it's possible to be morally pro-life while politically pro-choice at the same time. Many mothers have put this idea into practice by choosing to have there babies, but yet acknowledged that it was still a choice that was still there's to exercise, not the governments. This provides the basis of being Pro-Choice and endorsing the Sanctity of Life as well.
Unfortunately, political polarization has occurred, with many taking to extremes and providing no middle ground for rational examination. Whataboutism has entered the picture as well. The thoughts that are held by the extreme fringes of society as presented as the mainstream.
The current social climate promotes a very hostile environment. Until this hostile climate is addressed, a rational and healthy examination of the abortion topic can't occur. When one demonizes others based on stereotypes and preconceived biases, it only causes further division on the topic. Healthy dialogue can only occur when people stop there condemnations and demonetization of others. Only then can the topic be explored in a rational and civil manner.
Understanding Contradictions
Personally, I think
abortion is wrong. With that said, I also think that abortion is a
private, personal issue that isn't up to me to decide. My personal views
on morality shouldn't be the basis for universal law. Those dealing
with the issue are being torn between sides and political slants that
often, excuse my language, don't give a damn about the pain that they
are suffering from or the question that they are dealing with. Dealing
with those struggling with the issue by threatening capital punishment
isn't Pro-Life. This goes against those that champion the Sanctity of
Life.
The issue becomes another political topic to call on in order to draw votes, and thus, reduced to a spectacle. The irony is that often, many will take up the issue claiming that they are there to represent either the woman or fetus. At the end of the day though, both are forgotten by the very same people that claim to uphold there interest. Those that claim the Pro-life stance will champion the cause of the fetus, but once that baby is born, those that champion that cause will forget that the newborn exist.It’s at this point where one comes to the realization that the Sanctity of Life doesn't stop at the womb, and its narrow application just to the abortion debate does a huge disservice to the concept.
Sanctity of Life is where the term “Pro-Life” comes into being. You’re for life. It's a commonly used statement against abortion. There is a massive issue within American Evangelical Christianity though, which is resulting in there stance of abortion not being taken seriously. This contradiction is than many within Evangelical Christianity feel that justifying against abortion makes them Pro-Life. This is not the case though,
What are these contradictions? They can be summed up in various questions. What about those aborted due to gun violence? What about those in horrible circumstances beyond there control, ie. broken homes, abusive parents, drug problems, or homelessness? What about those children who were aborted because of drone strikes in Yemen that are overlooked? What about those that declare that the fetus is the most important thing in the world, but show no compassion to those that have been carpet bombed in foreign countries? What about those around the world, Buddhist, Hindu, Christians, and Muslims that are facing attacks and genocide in certain parts of the world for who they are? What about those who have horrible suffered because they are of the LGBTQ community? Real violence happens to them as well. One can't make the declaration that they're Pro-Life, while at the same time, being completely ignorant of the pain and suffering of others.
The idea that just being anti-abortion makes one Pro-Life is a horrible flawed idea for the fact that life continues well beyond the womb. The unfortunate fact is that the life of a newborn is immediately forgotten once it leaves the womb. It's as if the baby has to fend for itself now. The narrow application of the sanctity of life just to the abortion topic does a huge disservice to this idea. Also, what about the sanctity of life for those grappling with the issue as well. The ones that are grappling with the issue privately that are now thrusted into the spotlight, receiving unwanted attention? If those dealing with the issue are treated as criminals, then doesn't that rob them of there sanctity as well? I admit that this is a very complex issue. It's though not black-and-white as many make it out to be. The reason for this is that there is a lot more than what meets the eye.
Another contradiction, especially for ones for modern American Evangelical Christians that don't know there history, was that many Christians were instrumental in the overturning of the abortion walls in the years prior to Roe-V-Wade. Many spiritual leaders in the day realized the horrible dilemma that those woman had to deal with. They also realized that it was wrong to pass of there own moral beliefs as universal civic law. They understood the contradiction of the idea that one person's interpretation of what morality is being passed off as universal law, even on those that didn't conform to those beliefs. They saw a service wasn't gong to be done for the child born to a woman who wasn't ready for motherhood. They also realized that a woman was jeopardizing her health going to places where those performing the procedures didn't have the expertise. How is that Pro-Life? It's extremely hostile actually. These spiritual leaders often referred woman to doctors who could safely perform the procedure.
If one who is grappling with this issue chooses to seek help from spiritual leaders, then that is her right. It's the role of the spiritual leaders to guide her to that path. With that said, they can't make the choice for her. Only she can make that choice. If those spiritual leaders make that choice for her, then they would be overstepping there authority. Spirituality is manipulated in the process.
The reason why I bring this up is because the restrictions being placed on abortion are being made for religious reasons, and not objective or rational interpretation of data in relation to the abortion topic. Many that support restrictive abortion based on religious application to universal law will scream will scream "Islamic Sharia Law" at the top of there lungs. Sharia is essentially basing universal law on religious-specific code. The political leaders representing American Evangelical Christianity are exactly doing just that: they are codifying universal law based on there own interpretation of morality, influenced by religious doctrine instead of universal application of the law. These legislators are doing exactly hat they condemn Radical Muslims for doing, embracing the ideas of Christian Nationalism and Dominionism, ideas that aren't biblically based.
The issue becomes another political topic to call on in order to draw votes, and thus, reduced to a spectacle. The irony is that often, many will take up the issue claiming that they are there to represent either the woman or fetus. At the end of the day though, both are forgotten by the very same people that claim to uphold there interest. Those that claim the Pro-life stance will champion the cause of the fetus, but once that baby is born, those that champion that cause will forget that the newborn exist.It’s at this point where one comes to the realization that the Sanctity of Life doesn't stop at the womb, and its narrow application just to the abortion debate does a huge disservice to the concept.
Sanctity of Life is where the term “Pro-Life” comes into being. You’re for life. It's a commonly used statement against abortion. There is a massive issue within American Evangelical Christianity though, which is resulting in there stance of abortion not being taken seriously. This contradiction is than many within Evangelical Christianity feel that justifying against abortion makes them Pro-Life. This is not the case though,
What are these contradictions? They can be summed up in various questions. What about those aborted due to gun violence? What about those in horrible circumstances beyond there control, ie. broken homes, abusive parents, drug problems, or homelessness? What about those children who were aborted because of drone strikes in Yemen that are overlooked? What about those that declare that the fetus is the most important thing in the world, but show no compassion to those that have been carpet bombed in foreign countries? What about those around the world, Buddhist, Hindu, Christians, and Muslims that are facing attacks and genocide in certain parts of the world for who they are? What about those who have horrible suffered because they are of the LGBTQ community? Real violence happens to them as well. One can't make the declaration that they're Pro-Life, while at the same time, being completely ignorant of the pain and suffering of others.
The idea that just being anti-abortion makes one Pro-Life is a horrible flawed idea for the fact that life continues well beyond the womb. The unfortunate fact is that the life of a newborn is immediately forgotten once it leaves the womb. It's as if the baby has to fend for itself now. The narrow application of the sanctity of life just to the abortion topic does a huge disservice to this idea. Also, what about the sanctity of life for those grappling with the issue as well. The ones that are grappling with the issue privately that are now thrusted into the spotlight, receiving unwanted attention? If those dealing with the issue are treated as criminals, then doesn't that rob them of there sanctity as well? I admit that this is a very complex issue. It's though not black-and-white as many make it out to be. The reason for this is that there is a lot more than what meets the eye.
Another contradiction, especially for ones for modern American Evangelical Christians that don't know there history, was that many Christians were instrumental in the overturning of the abortion walls in the years prior to Roe-V-Wade. Many spiritual leaders in the day realized the horrible dilemma that those woman had to deal with. They also realized that it was wrong to pass of there own moral beliefs as universal civic law. They understood the contradiction of the idea that one person's interpretation of what morality is being passed off as universal law, even on those that didn't conform to those beliefs. They saw a service wasn't gong to be done for the child born to a woman who wasn't ready for motherhood. They also realized that a woman was jeopardizing her health going to places where those performing the procedures didn't have the expertise. How is that Pro-Life? It's extremely hostile actually. These spiritual leaders often referred woman to doctors who could safely perform the procedure.
If one who is grappling with this issue chooses to seek help from spiritual leaders, then that is her right. It's the role of the spiritual leaders to guide her to that path. With that said, they can't make the choice for her. Only she can make that choice. If those spiritual leaders make that choice for her, then they would be overstepping there authority. Spirituality is manipulated in the process.
The reason why I bring this up is because the restrictions being placed on abortion are being made for religious reasons, and not objective or rational interpretation of data in relation to the abortion topic. Many that support restrictive abortion based on religious application to universal law will scream will scream "Islamic Sharia Law" at the top of there lungs. Sharia is essentially basing universal law on religious-specific code. The political leaders representing American Evangelical Christianity are exactly doing just that: they are codifying universal law based on there own interpretation of morality, influenced by religious doctrine instead of universal application of the law. These legislators are doing exactly hat they condemn Radical Muslims for doing, embracing the ideas of Christian Nationalism and Dominionism, ideas that aren't biblically based.
The Restrictions Imposed On Those That
Scream "FREEDOM" At The Top Of There Lungs
Scream "FREEDOM" At The Top Of There Lungs
Many scream
"FREEDOM", at the top of there lungs as well, but for many, the idea of
freedom is restricting the choice to others. How is that freedom? Many
only take up the cause of freedom only when it's convenient with them.
This can be seen throughout. Those who declare themselves defenders of America claim to defend freedom. However, the restrictions on those who are of the LGBTQ community are restricted in various ways. Restrictive measures imposed because of who they are. Services denied to them for who they are. One person's idea of freedom means denying freedom to someone else. How is that freedom? The freedom to discriminate isn't freedom to the one on the receiving end just wanting service. Those at the other end aren't demanding the ones providing the service to conform to there viewpoint. They just wanted service.
PBS recently, aired a episode of the Arthur cartoon which acknowledge the existence of gay marriage and depicted it on one of its episodes. The episode in question was banned on Alabama public television. Many of those who champion what Alabama did claim that this was done in the name of "FREEDOM". However, it robbed "FREEDOM" to those that would have wanted the choice to watch the episode in question. That choice should have belonged to the parents, regardless of the decision made. It wasn't up to the Alabama government to become the thought police and dictate that choice. The parents choice in whether there child could watch the episode was robbed by a government decree. How is that freedom?
One of the reason why we focused on Alabama is because the state's government passed the most restrictive abortion bill. The only reason this bill exist is to challenge Roe v. Wade. The well-being or interest of women dealing with the issue wasn't a factor at all. This bill was not drafted to provide a rational or objective addressing of the issue. It was a bill not designed to spark a rational debate, but to end it on its terms. If the government can dictate what they can and can't do in the case of women dealing with this issue, then where does one draw the line. What's next. This is the thing the Libertarians warn about. If the government can dictate the mother can make on child-birth, then what else can they decide at a later time?
Often, people become do paranoid about the government that they often don't look at when people acting on the behalf of those representing morality try to dictate legislation on there interpretations of what it should be. This isn't a democracy, but a theocracy. Theocracies are bad, regardless of the religion, as it tries to enforce a specific religious code on everybody, including those that don't conform to those beliefs. There is a word for religious law being enforced as civic code. It's called Sharia Law, and it can exist within Christianity as well. Like theocracies, Sharia is bad, regardless of the religion.
This can be seen throughout. Those who declare themselves defenders of America claim to defend freedom. However, the restrictions on those who are of the LGBTQ community are restricted in various ways. Restrictive measures imposed because of who they are. Services denied to them for who they are. One person's idea of freedom means denying freedom to someone else. How is that freedom? The freedom to discriminate isn't freedom to the one on the receiving end just wanting service. Those at the other end aren't demanding the ones providing the service to conform to there viewpoint. They just wanted service.
PBS recently, aired a episode of the Arthur cartoon which acknowledge the existence of gay marriage and depicted it on one of its episodes. The episode in question was banned on Alabama public television. Many of those who champion what Alabama did claim that this was done in the name of "FREEDOM". However, it robbed "FREEDOM" to those that would have wanted the choice to watch the episode in question. That choice should have belonged to the parents, regardless of the decision made. It wasn't up to the Alabama government to become the thought police and dictate that choice. The parents choice in whether there child could watch the episode was robbed by a government decree. How is that freedom?
One of the reason why we focused on Alabama is because the state's government passed the most restrictive abortion bill. The only reason this bill exist is to challenge Roe v. Wade. The well-being or interest of women dealing with the issue wasn't a factor at all. This bill was not drafted to provide a rational or objective addressing of the issue. It was a bill not designed to spark a rational debate, but to end it on its terms. If the government can dictate what they can and can't do in the case of women dealing with this issue, then where does one draw the line. What's next. This is the thing the Libertarians warn about. If the government can dictate the mother can make on child-birth, then what else can they decide at a later time?
Often, people become do paranoid about the government that they often don't look at when people acting on the behalf of those representing morality try to dictate legislation on there interpretations of what it should be. This isn't a democracy, but a theocracy. Theocracies are bad, regardless of the religion, as it tries to enforce a specific religious code on everybody, including those that don't conform to those beliefs. There is a word for religious law being enforced as civic code. It's called Sharia Law, and it can exist within Christianity as well. Like theocracies, Sharia is bad, regardless of the religion.
What Needs To Be Done In A Nutshell
The irony is
that the bill in question, and others drafted like it, will probably
lead to more abortions. It's essentially counter-productive to the issue
that they are trying to address. As mentioned earlier, I have a strong
disdain for abortion. At the same time, if one wants to tackle abortion
while preserving the freedom of choice (because Abortion is something
that will never going to magically go away even if outlawed), what
needed is a comprehensive sex education on both the middle and high
School setting and education teens about the dangers of unprotected sex.
This is already have a impact as this is a major contributing factor to the lowest abortion rates in this country in years. Unplanned pregnancy rates have also fallen to there lowest levels. Studies have also shown that schools that taught both abstinence along with safe-sex education had significantly lower pregnancy rates than those schools that only taught abstinence.
There is this mindset that those that embrace the concept of a abstinence-only sex educational will lead to a happy place where sex doesn't exist. Sex will persist, regardless of the sex education program in place or the state, county, or neighborhood that the school is located in. This idea that all students in that school will become righteous and moral because of a abstinence-only education that promotes a sex-free environment is absurd. Safe-sex education becomes a valuable insurance policy that kicks in when abstinence-only education fails.
It vital to education woman on having children when they are ready to support them. Birth control needs to be readily available for those that need it. At this point, another mindset needs to be challenged as well facing this certain stigma. Many see birth control and abortion as the same thing. As a result, many avoid preventive measures as they see it as the same equivalent to abortion. It's not. Birth control is there as a preemptive measure in order to prevent a unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is the act to terminate a fetus when it already exist.
This mindset largely exist in areas that are predominantly Catholic. In certain areas of the world, birth control seen as abortion has already had many disastrous effects. In many parts of Africa, many avoided the use of birth control because it went against a person's Catholic beliefs. However, unprotected sex occurred anyway. The cases of AIDS skyrocketed as a result, and now, death and infection rates from AIDS still remain rampant, with the negative view of birth control for religious reasons seen as a major contributing factor.
The reason why this needs to be addressed is because if we want lower pregnancy rates, then we have to stop looking at birth control and abortion in the same light. This stigma needs to go away for real progress on this issue to continue. This leads to lower pregnancy rates, and thus, lower abortion rates. Isn't this what those who are against abortion want?
Those dealing with the topic need to have healthy alternatives to abortion. This mainly occurs in the form of community outreach. The community and religious setting needs to make a much greater effort reaching out to those that might potentially encounter the issue. This can be in the form of church programs or volunteer, community involvement/school programs throughout. Social programs need to be part of this as well. Social program designed to give those that might potentially encounter the issue the information and medical/health advice that they need.
Most of those that get abortions come from lower income groups. As a result, more research needs to be done in order to understand how to reach out and deal with those within this group. See what can be done to reach out to those within those income brackets. Studies to see what social programs might need to be implemented in order to lower unplanned pregnancies, and thus, lower abortion rates in this economic group. Maybe there needs to be sex-education or community outreach to those in this particular bracket as well.
Many could argue that the current state of unrestricted, winner-takes-all Capitalism is a major contributor to how abortion plays out in this country today. It's a system that punishes those who are poor, even if they work hard. A system that views reaching out to women on the lower strata of the economic spectrum as Socialism or Communism. Many could argue that going back to a state of Capitalism, like the type that existed in out country from the 1930's-1970's, is what's needed to deal with the abortion topic. Fewer women in poverty means lower pregnancy and abortion rates. This would result in a sharp decline in abortion rates. Isn't this what those who are against abortion want? Or are they hoping that simply outlawing without doing anything else will magically make the problem go away?
This is already have a impact as this is a major contributing factor to the lowest abortion rates in this country in years. Unplanned pregnancy rates have also fallen to there lowest levels. Studies have also shown that schools that taught both abstinence along with safe-sex education had significantly lower pregnancy rates than those schools that only taught abstinence.
There is this mindset that those that embrace the concept of a abstinence-only sex educational will lead to a happy place where sex doesn't exist. Sex will persist, regardless of the sex education program in place or the state, county, or neighborhood that the school is located in. This idea that all students in that school will become righteous and moral because of a abstinence-only education that promotes a sex-free environment is absurd. Safe-sex education becomes a valuable insurance policy that kicks in when abstinence-only education fails.
It vital to education woman on having children when they are ready to support them. Birth control needs to be readily available for those that need it. At this point, another mindset needs to be challenged as well facing this certain stigma. Many see birth control and abortion as the same thing. As a result, many avoid preventive measures as they see it as the same equivalent to abortion. It's not. Birth control is there as a preemptive measure in order to prevent a unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is the act to terminate a fetus when it already exist.
This mindset largely exist in areas that are predominantly Catholic. In certain areas of the world, birth control seen as abortion has already had many disastrous effects. In many parts of Africa, many avoided the use of birth control because it went against a person's Catholic beliefs. However, unprotected sex occurred anyway. The cases of AIDS skyrocketed as a result, and now, death and infection rates from AIDS still remain rampant, with the negative view of birth control for religious reasons seen as a major contributing factor.
The reason why this needs to be addressed is because if we want lower pregnancy rates, then we have to stop looking at birth control and abortion in the same light. This stigma needs to go away for real progress on this issue to continue. This leads to lower pregnancy rates, and thus, lower abortion rates. Isn't this what those who are against abortion want?
Those dealing with the topic need to have healthy alternatives to abortion. This mainly occurs in the form of community outreach. The community and religious setting needs to make a much greater effort reaching out to those that might potentially encounter the issue. This can be in the form of church programs or volunteer, community involvement/school programs throughout. Social programs need to be part of this as well. Social program designed to give those that might potentially encounter the issue the information and medical/health advice that they need.
Most of those that get abortions come from lower income groups. As a result, more research needs to be done in order to understand how to reach out and deal with those within this group. See what can be done to reach out to those within those income brackets. Studies to see what social programs might need to be implemented in order to lower unplanned pregnancies, and thus, lower abortion rates in this economic group. Maybe there needs to be sex-education or community outreach to those in this particular bracket as well.
Many could argue that the current state of unrestricted, winner-takes-all Capitalism is a major contributor to how abortion plays out in this country today. It's a system that punishes those who are poor, even if they work hard. A system that views reaching out to women on the lower strata of the economic spectrum as Socialism or Communism. Many could argue that going back to a state of Capitalism, like the type that existed in out country from the 1930's-1970's, is what's needed to deal with the abortion topic. Fewer women in poverty means lower pregnancy and abortion rates. This would result in a sharp decline in abortion rates. Isn't this what those who are against abortion want? Or are they hoping that simply outlawing without doing anything else will magically make the problem go away?
Possible Scenarios
If states do
ban abortion, but yet, make birth control easily accessible, access to
comprehensive sex education program, and giving women healthy alternates
to abortion in the form of community outreach, there is a possibility
that abortion rates might
decline. However, abortions will
still occur, and the issue will only be pushed underground. Women will
go through dangerous avenues to get one. jeopardizing the person's
health in the process.
Even if scenario one is the less destructive of the two, what happens to the those that still feel that the right to an abortion belongs to the woman, and not those in power making that decision on her behalf? What about those that became pregnant through rape? How would there needs be addressed under these scenarios? What about those where the life of the mother is at risked? These are questions that need to be pondered before plunging off the deep end. Outlawing something will not make the issue magically disappear, and those that think that it will are diluting themselves.
Under scenario two, if abortion is outlawed, but yet, birth control is hard to come by, schools only teach abstinence-only education, and women don't have access to those social programs or there's a lack of community outreach that provides a healthy alternative to unplanned pregnancy, then abortions is going to skyrocket and become a lot more rampant. This is the complete opposite of what those who against abortion are trying to accomplish.
For those against abortion think that abortion is out of control know (despite the lowest recorded rates ever), then things will get much worse for scenario two. The irony is that those that want to stop abortions are championing policies that would result in abortions becoming a lot more common. Scenario two is going to have the complete opposite effect.
Even if scenario one is the less destructive of the two, what happens to the those that still feel that the right to an abortion belongs to the woman, and not those in power making that decision on her behalf? What about those that became pregnant through rape? How would there needs be addressed under these scenarios? What about those where the life of the mother is at risked? These are questions that need to be pondered before plunging off the deep end. Outlawing something will not make the issue magically disappear, and those that think that it will are diluting themselves.
Under scenario two, if abortion is outlawed, but yet, birth control is hard to come by, schools only teach abstinence-only education, and women don't have access to those social programs or there's a lack of community outreach that provides a healthy alternative to unplanned pregnancy, then abortions is going to skyrocket and become a lot more rampant. This is the complete opposite of what those who against abortion are trying to accomplish.
For those against abortion think that abortion is out of control know (despite the lowest recorded rates ever), then things will get much worse for scenario two. The irony is that those that want to stop abortions are championing policies that would result in abortions becoming a lot more common. Scenario two is going to have the complete opposite effect.
Rampant Misinformation
Misinformation is
very rampant online, especially on Facebook where it seems to be at its
worst. A platform that wasn't designed for news distribution is being
used as such. Most of those that go to Facebook will post memes that
conform to there worldview, but yet the information presented in these
memes contain misinformation that isn't accurate at all. Yet, these
memes are embraced as validated fact by there supporters. Memes that are
often divisive in nature and intended to stir unnecessary controversy
to divide people even more.
Often those that post these memes won't research whether the information presented in them is factual or not. It will be posted on impulse. No fact-checking is done. When confronted with this, many will respond that they don't have the time to fact-check, which would have only taken a few minutes. However, those posting the memes had the time to read them, form a opinion about them, and then posted it on there FB Timelines. If people had the time to do that, then they had the time to take 5-10 minutes to check whether the information presented was factual or not.
After New York passed the The Reproductive Health Act, there was a flood of memes that contained false information. Yet, they were embraced as the gospel by there supporters. Recently, Trump made the following declaration:
“The baby is born; the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. This is unconscionable.”
Trump's statement is a flat out lie that designed to fan the flames of rhetoric. These meetings never took place, but yet, declared as a event that's occurring now. Here are some of the other memes containing false information in regard to New York's The Reproductive Health Act
Often those that post these memes won't research whether the information presented in them is factual or not. It will be posted on impulse. No fact-checking is done. When confronted with this, many will respond that they don't have the time to fact-check, which would have only taken a few minutes. However, those posting the memes had the time to read them, form a opinion about them, and then posted it on there FB Timelines. If people had the time to do that, then they had the time to take 5-10 minutes to check whether the information presented was factual or not.
After New York passed the The Reproductive Health Act, there was a flood of memes that contained false information. Yet, they were embraced as the gospel by there supporters. Recently, Trump made the following declaration:
“The baby is born; the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. This is unconscionable.”
Trump's statement is a flat out lie that designed to fan the flames of rhetoric. These meetings never took place, but yet, declared as a event that's occurring now. Here are some of the other memes containing false information in regard to New York's The Reproductive Health Act
In order to
rationally deal with this topic, we have to stop posting these memes that contain no elements of
truth in them and designed to inflame charged emotions. Memes designed to divide
people even more and not promote healthy dialogue. There won't be a civil examination of this topic
until people stop pushing emotional
drivel that isn't based on reality.
Conclusion
The fact is that
abortions will always be around, and there's nothing that can stop it.
With that said, it's possible to deal with the topic in a rational way
without letting emotions getting in the way. It's possible to deal with
the topic without robbing women the choice in the matter. Abortions in
this country were rampant when it was illegal, but yet, nobody seem
concerned until Roe v Wade. One could argue that was when abortion ended
in this country as now women had a choice in the manner, and abortions
rates have been in steady decline.
Yes, a lot of this decline has been a result of much more restrictive measures in many states now. However, those rates would have gone down anyway as sex-ed programs and accessibility to birth control, along with providing women alternatives to unplanned pregnancies, would have contributed to those lower abortion rates anyway. Wasn't this what those who are against abortion wanted? As mentioned before, abortion will never go away completely, but you can try to minimize it as much as possible in a way that's respectful to those dealing with the topic.
Yet though, unfortunately, I see scenario two as being the one that would most likely outcome. Birth control and abortion are seen in the same light, and safe-sex education is seen as dirty smut. Social programs/community outreach along with government programs dealing with the state of unrestricted Capitalism (and its abuses) in relation to this topic is seen as Socialism and Communistic in nature. This is why I feel that the addressing of the abortion topic will only get worse with the passing of time.
When we go into emotional overload, we become our own worst enemies. We see things that aren't there. We pass off misinformation off as fact.
Yes, a lot of this decline has been a result of much more restrictive measures in many states now. However, those rates would have gone down anyway as sex-ed programs and accessibility to birth control, along with providing women alternatives to unplanned pregnancies, would have contributed to those lower abortion rates anyway. Wasn't this what those who are against abortion wanted? As mentioned before, abortion will never go away completely, but you can try to minimize it as much as possible in a way that's respectful to those dealing with the topic.
Yet though, unfortunately, I see scenario two as being the one that would most likely outcome. Birth control and abortion are seen in the same light, and safe-sex education is seen as dirty smut. Social programs/community outreach along with government programs dealing with the state of unrestricted Capitalism (and its abuses) in relation to this topic is seen as Socialism and Communistic in nature. This is why I feel that the addressing of the abortion topic will only get worse with the passing of time.
When we go into emotional overload, we become our own worst enemies. We see things that aren't there. We pass off misinformation off as fact.
Do Women Meet With Doctors to Determine Whether to ‘Execute’ Newborn Babies?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Desperate Donald is Working His Christian Supporters Even Harder by Dropping the “A Bomb”
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.
UPWORTHY
WWW.UPWORTHY.COM
Capital Punishment For Abortion Is Not Pro-Life
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
What is Christian dominionism?
Got Questions
WWW.GOTQUESTIONS.ORG
Christian nationalism
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Birth Rates (Live Births) per 1,000 Females Aged 15-19 Years, by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2015
CDC
WWW.CDC.GOV
About Teen Pregnancy
CDC
WWW.CDC.GOV
Fifty years on, and Catholics are still in turmoil over contraception
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
Condoms and the Catholic Church
Rational Wiki
WWW.RATIONALWIKI.ORG
Birth Control
Rational Wiki
WWW.RATIONALWIKI.ORG
Did President Obama Order Mother’s Day Be Used to Celebrate Abortions?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.COM
No, New York abortion law doesn't let mothers abort babies a minute before they would be born
POLITIFACT
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
A Better Way To End Abortion In America
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Why Do Poor Women Have More Abortions?
Slate
WWW.SLATE.COM
Abstinence-Only Education Is Ineffective And Unethical, Report Argues
NPR
WWW.NPR.ORG
In Texas, Abstinence-Only Programs May Contribute To Teen Pregnancies
NPR
WWW.NPR.ORG
Research Confirms That Abstinence-Only Education Hurts Kids
Forbes
WWW.FORBES.COM
Comments
Post a Comment