Of course, Republicans have begun to rain on the Democrats' parade. McCain is "repulsed" by the Democrats celebrating this bill's passage. Can you see his life? At least the Dems were trying to pass a bill to make sure that millions of people can get health insurance. What landmark piece of legislature did Republicans pass when they had the majority? Oh, that's right! They started the Iraq war and tossed the country into a massive deficit. Thanks a lot!
Yesterday, during the back and forth in the House of Representatives, a Republican yelled "baby killer" when Democrat Bart Stupak stood up to make a statement. The Republicans apparently decided that their last attempt to derail the Health Care Reform bill (HCR) would be to pull out "ye old abortion" complaint. Republicans say the bill provides federal dollars for abortion. Meanwhile, the Democrats have repeatedly responded by saying the bill will allow more women to have healthy babies and does not provide government funding for abortion.
Republicans are not trying to save unborn children, they are trying to make sure that HCR is scrapped in its entirety. Their current rationale for this is that there is no "abortion deterrent" in the bill, but this story may change to something else tomorrow. Democrats are saying that the bill is vital to save the lives of over 32million currently living Americans, who do not have health insurance. Taken away from the context of HCR, this "argument" has crossed my mind often.
My question here is, who is "righter"? Does a fetus' "right to life" trump a person's "right to live"? This reminds me of that classic argument. If a mother and her unborn child were in danger and you could only save one, who would you save? Does the child's "right to life" trump its mothers "right to live"? If you were a mother and it was your life or your baby's life would you save yourself or save your unborn child? If you were the father and it was your decision would you save your partner or your child? I once asked this question of The Duchess and she said she would give up her life for her unborn child. I wouldn't. What would you do?
Although congress is arguing about this for political reasons, it is still an interesting ethical dilemma. Should we abandon millions of people currently in need to cater to unborn children? I guess it depends on how religious you are and how you see the world. If I were in the situation above I would save my life so that I could live to have another child later. Some of you wouldn't.
Of course not all abortions are about life or death situations. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of a woman not feeling prepared to have a child and deciding to have an abortion. That conversation can happen another day. Right now I am focusing on the "life and death" scenario. Does "right to life" trump "right to live"?
Personally I am pro-choice. This does not mean "pro-abortion" as the right wing extremists would have you believe. I support a woman's right to choose what she wants. I do not think abortions should be outlawed, but I do not think they should become the order of the day either. I simply think that women should have the option available and if they decide to use it or not, that is their decision. Where do you stand?
P.S: Republicans love to say that abortion is wrong but in the next breath they say that the government shouldn't interfere in people's lives. Let me get this straight, it is not okay for the government to overhaul the failing health care system, but it is okay for the government to tell a woman whether or not she should keep a child? Does anyone else see the failure in logic here? If you are pro-"small government" then you have to be pro-choice because any other option would mean the government's involvement in women's health.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Indulge your ego...leave a comment.