EDITORIAL

(3/6/2006)

PART II

Reasons to Keep Abortion Legal in South Dakota

A look at some of the more common arguments

By Bob Ellis

Editor

Continued from page 1...

Many pro-lifers are inconsistent, supporting the death penalty. The death penalty is completely pro-life. Life is so sacred that the wrongful taking of it demands the highest penalty. It preserves life by protecting society—and the guards and other inmates endangered by imprisoning a murderer—and sends the message to our society that if you choose to take a life wrongfully, you will forfeit your own.  And for those of you who say you believe in God, check Genesis 9:6.  He issued this edict before the Mosaic Law, and His Son never said anything to repeal it--not even in the situation of the adulterous woman which is so often taken out of context.

What about the physical hardships of pregnancy (back strain, diabetes, depression and mood swings)? What about them? These and other ailments are not exclusive to pregnancy. Women—and men—get strains, diseases, depressions and mood swings just by going through life. We sometimes get them by the lifestyles we live—too much sugar, rough sports, dangerous jobs, and sometimes an unwillingness to deal with reality. If a mother’s life is truly threatened by a pregnancy, HB 1215 allows for an abortion in such a case. But a health exception—which you could drive a Mac truck through—is not only unnecessary, but would make the bill meaningless through the misuse it would foster.

Here’s a good one: will pro-lifers adopt and/or help raise those un-aborted children? Newsflash: they already are doing both. This is a classic red herring used by the pro abortion community which attempts to make pro-lifers look like uncaring old prunes who simply want to spoil everybody’s fun while caring nothing about anyone else. There are countless pro-lifers who are adopting large numbers of children, even those who might have otherwise been aborted. I personally know of people—those who have their own biological children and those who cannot have children—who have gone far out of their way to adopt children of single mothers. There are also many pro-life people out there working tirelessly—most as unpaid volunteers—in pregnancy centers across the country to help pregnant women in need, many others working to facilitate adoption, and still more who work in mentoring programs to help give children a firm foundation upon which to grow.

Hand-in-hand with the last one was the call for a plethora of socialist programs to provide “warm meals” and “warm clothes” for children. Until the past 50 years of human existence, such things were the responsibility of parents, not the state. But this is yet another red herring. Lyndon Johnson was going to “end poverty” back in the ‘60s with $5 billion, and over $6 trillion later, the poverty rate hadn’t moved an inch. And despite the welfare reform of the mid-90s, we still spend more on social programs than on defense. There are also numerous private relief agencies and churches in every community to help those who are truly in need. So no, this red herring does not supersede the preservation of human life.

Hands-down, the most frequent objection to what I’d said was that since I’m not a woman I have no right to say anything about what she does with her body. Okay, let’s repeal all those laws passed by a majority of men—criminalizing rape, criminalizing incest, criminalizing drug use, and the like. After all, since these crimes involve a woman’s body, and a man can’t possibly understand that, men have no right to criminalize these things. In fact, we should repeal many other laws which were passed by mostly men—laws such as murder (by women) and assault (by women). After all, these women who murder and assault are using their own bodies to commit the act, and since men can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be a woman, we must set women free from this masculine oppression. Further still, child abuse committed by the mother of a child should be decriminalized. After all, the child is just a part of the mother’s body (what’s the difference between inside the womb and out?), and since the abuse would be carried out with the woman’s body—which a man can’t possibly understand—any child abuse laws passed by mostly men should be repealed.

Several letters were characterized by a certain priority, but one letter was brazenly clear in this aspect: the woman's concerns eclipsed all other concerns, including the life of the child. One might argue as to why we would want self-centered, nihilistic women like this to rear children at all, but that still doesn't supersede the right of the child to LIVE. So many just don't seem to be able to see past their own concerns to acknowledge a greater concern—the right to live.

It's almost as if, since they can't see that life with their own eyes, it doesn't exist, or at least is something that can easily be disregarded, almost like an imaginary character. Perhaps the same could be said for a life in England, or Cambodia, or Nigeria. After all, if we can't see it, then of what value is it? If it's not staring us in the face with irrefutable proof of its existence, why value it? Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean it isn't what it is. You can't see gravity, but you'd certainly better respect it, especially on a bridge or at the top of a tall building. You can't see electricity going through the walls of your house, but you'd better respect it if you're going to go cutting into those walls. You can't see a virus, but the wrong one in your bloodstream can kill you.

It’s sad that our culture has become so self-centered that we feel at ease…no, entitled…to brush aside human life in order to pursue convenience. And it is the height of hypocrisy for a culture which, for the most part worships science, to cast aside the science which indicates that the fetus is an individual human life.

No, I don't think there are any reasons, other than to save the life of the mother, to keep abortion legal in South Dakota that supersede the child's right to live.

Continued from page 1...