I Am Very Disapointed With the Stupak Amendment

 

Although I was very happy that Speaker Pelosi was able to pass the Health Reform Legislation, I am very disapointed with the Stupak amendment. [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

I am against abortion. I don't really think that anybody is actually for abortion, not really. It's like saying that you don't like babies, and nobody really says that. (With the possible exception of W. C. Fields.)

I also feel that any woman that makes the decision to have an abortion should be allowed to do so without interference from any outside person or agency. A decision of this nature is difficult enough for any woman to make, and nobody should be able to inject their own opinion into that woman's life. It's her own decision to make.

Women have abortions for a variety of reasons, and there is much debate about the validity of those reasons. I feel that the main reason to be against legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose is not because you agree or disagree with any of those reasons.

I feel that the main reason to be against legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose is because when women are faced with the brick wall of not being able to have an abortion done professionally, women in desperate situations will be forced to resort to desperate means to get an abortion, often with horrifying and gruesome results.

Also, if we create a situation where women unable to get an abortion done professionally at her choosing, we create a situation where women are treated as second class citizens. This happens in a variety of ways depending on a series of different circumstances, but the results are the same. A situation that creates inequality between the sexes cannot and should not be tolerated.

The only way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies, and the only way to stop unwanted pregnancies is through education and birth control. It's as simple as that. Zero tolerance of abortions and "abstinence only education" just doesn't work.

Of the estimated 46 million abortions that are performed worldwide every year, 26 million are said to occur in places where abortion is legal and the other 20 million happen where the procedure is illegal. Abortion will take place no matter what. As a matter of fact, a significant portion of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (or "spontaneous abortion") without any form of human intervention. Abortions will simply happen, natural or otherwise.

To say that you are "pro-abortion" is kind of like saying you are "pro-alcoholism". I don't really think that anybody is actually for alcoholism, not really. It's like saying that you are for the enslavement of a significant portion of mankind's population to an addictive drug, and nobody really says that. (With the possible exception of W. C. Fields.)

In the United States between 1919 to 1933 the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally by the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Despite the lofty aspirations of the temperance movement and the Eighteenth Amendment, this had the effect of creating more social ills than it prevented. Racketeering and organized crime found a huge new market through bootlegging, and caused corruption of all levels of law enforcement agencies. Many people died or became blind during the 1920s after drinking spirits made inexpensively using cheap grain alcohols.

Hard liquor became more popular because it was easier to transport and hide from the authorities. Strangely enough, the taste for alcohol became more widespread among America's youth and drinking became more socially acceptable than it had been prior to 1920. The temperance movement was also adopted to promote the unrelated agendas of various small-minded and petty organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan.

It would be fair to say that my comparison of the effects of the Eighteenth Amendment and Roe v. Wade does not take into account many of the important factors of either of these two sets of circumstances, but I do believe that in making a comparison of both cases it can be shown that historically zero tolerance has had the effect of creating more social ills than were prevented in either situation.