facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Columbiana


Residential
2 bedroom, 2 bath
$134900


Poland


Residential
4 bedroom, 7 bath
$999900


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
 

« Reason

Abortion and Fascism

By Tyler S. Clark (Contact)


Published February 4, 2008

A letter to the editor Friday by Ida Callan of Girard took on a Vindicator editorial commemorating the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The reader may remember that the Roe v. Wade decision centered on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and one's constitutional right to privacy in its decision.

In other words, the court emphasized the government at neither the state nor the federal level can take away the mother's liberty or privacy rights to intervene on behalf of a non-viable fetus (that cannot survive outside its mother's womb, this is typically up to 28 but as early as 24 weeks, according to Wikipedia), except where it can prove a "compelling interest", such as for the sake of the mother's life.

While Ms. Callan focuses on life beginning at conception, she skips over the definition of what life is, "When life begins is not a personal opinion or a religious belief, rather, it is a scientific fact which is presented in first year biology. It is also defined in the dictionary; look under conception or fertilization."

There is a plant alive in my living room. Am I immoral for plucking its leaves, depriving it of water, or cutting it from its roots? Certainly not in any comparison to human life, therefore there is a difference between a human life and a plant life. The question is: when does this tangible or intangible difference manifest itself from the time sperm and egg join to when the newborn leaves the birth canal? The Vindicator's editorial stated the following:

"There are tens of millions of Americans of good conscience whose religion does not teach that life begins at the moment of conception. Their religion does not hold and they do not believe that every fertilized egg has rights that supersede the right of a pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to carry a child to term. And that’s not to mention people of fine moral standing who are nonreligious or who disagree with their own religion on some points."

The statement suffices. Reasonable people have differing beliefs on how to deal with the issue in their own lives. So, in a country as diverse as ours, the reasonable solution is to let each person choose her own path. To borrow from Jefferson, this shows, at least, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.

I can't help but return to Ms. Callan's final paragraph. I don't mean to be unkind, but it really does leave all logic behind, "[A] nation without a moral compass… Once objective standards fall, it becomes a free-for-all, and you can eventually end up with a police state."

This seems backwards. It's actually the overzealous enforcement of morality by an authoritarian faction, for example fascism, that leads to a police state. Since she seems to have so missed the point of the editorial she was critiquing, it seems only fair to return to it for the last word: "Beware of those who pine for the good old days when abortion was illegal. They are often the same people who would convert from church doctrine to civil law their religious beliefs on stem cell research, gay marriage, gay adoption, inoculations against cervical cancer, abstinence for teenagers, even birth control for adults.

If ever there was a time when Americans should beware of mixing religion and politics, this is that time."


Comments

1debraweaver(30 comments)posted 6 years, 2 months ago

Just as an aside to this conversation, abortion historically has not always been viewed as illegal or immoral. In fact, the views on this have varied over time. Early laws and church doctrine focused on "quickening" which is when the motion of the fetus can be felt by a pregnant woman. John Gratian (a monk) 1100's wrote the first collection of Canon law accepted by the Church. He concluded that the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to homicide. In 1765 in England post-quickening abortion was no longer considered a felony. It wasn't until the latter half of the 19th century that social perceptions about abortion started to change in the U.S. In the first half of the 19th century abortion was viewed as a last resort for pregnant but unwed women in most of the Western world. There were no laws against abortion in the early Roman Empire because the Romans did not regard a fetus as distinct from the mother's body. There has been such fluctuation of opinion about this issue over time that the choice to have an abortion should remain with the woman as it is after all her body.

Suggest removal:

2Cbarzak(110 comments)posted 6 years, 2 months ago

What Deb said. And on top of that, morality cannot be legislated--or should not be. A free country means exactly that--free. We should be free to decide our own paths in life. The United States is a democracy, not a theocracy, and because of this one religion's views on any subject(as if the Christian religion did not have many sub-groups that disagree with one another on a number of counts) cannot be imposed upon a nation made up of people of many religions as well as those who choose to not adhere to any religious perspective at all.

Suggest removal:



News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport