I think its obvious that he is/was pushing a federal law (amendment), because thats how our system is set-up and works. He obviously believes life is
important (and i would hope every living, breathing one of you would too, or else you wouldnt be here, so yes life is very important) so of course he
would try to further his agenda in the current system by pushing this bill. Its not a crime to respect life, and that is his position, he respects
life, no matter how new or fragile. It may contradict with a womans choice, but she also had a choice to use protection, and failed to do so. So just
a casual abortion ensues. (realistically not all cases, but statistically whats the percentage of rape/incest abortions over just an 'oh s#@t
abortion', probably not very high)
now should there be special considerations for special circumstances, of course. But since hes been at the literal fore-front of child birth, he
doesnt see where mothers health warrants such a procedure, and 4000+ births without the need speaks volumes. Its a cop out to abort a baby, for any
thing other than incest or rape, just admit you cant care for that child and move on with it.
I myself have many different opinions on abortion, and it ranges depending on circumstance. Overall though, I respect life, and ultimately i guess it
comes down to if you are morally capable of dealing with killing your unborn child, or not.
Every human is granted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" so the question becomes whose life is more important at what stage?
For instance, I think a rape victim should be granted this right, yes, full on abortion.
I think if a young 13-15 year old couple are faced with a child, the scenario becomes a matter of how good of a quality of life will an infant have
and be brought up with having highly immature parents/parenting. I think quality of life matters also, we shouldnt ruin childrens (13-15 year olds)
lives because they made a mistake and are forced to deal with that for the rest of their lives. So yes the infant suffers, but its before it can even
be aware of its suffering. So yes, again, I am for abortion on a scenario such as this. The young couple should have a shot at a full and filling life
without adult burdens.
Now I dont think there should be ANY person, with the absolute exception of rape and incest victims, that should be granted more than ONE abortion
EVER. The first time can be chalked up to a mistake, the second or third just screams irresponsible. So, no, not in this case.
and thats the problem, there is no concrete way to handle this situation, theres too many gray areas, but at least Paul reaches across the aisle and
defers that judgement to the PEOPLE. Right where legislation should start and end. We are a government for the people, he just wants to break it down
where more 'people' are in control of their lives. and im ok with that.
Besides, my wallet, and the actual living (well dying) soldiers in harms way are more of a concern to me, plus my personal liberties and freedoms, so
i dont see abortion as a huge topic that needs addressed right now considering our other problems. Case and point, there might not be an America left
to have an abortion in if we dont get the country back under some sort of reasonable control
edit on 1-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: to
finish my rant
edit on 1-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)