From a US Senator in an email today: "....my views on abortion. I abhor abortion, and I favor adoption. I am committed to reducing the number of abortions. I believe that we need to work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by promoting adoption and education about abstinence and family planning. Furthermore, the Federal government should not interfere with a woman's right to choose."
Very democratic, diplomatic, and disappointing/contradicting. Carefully stated, Senator, but it only creates a vacuum of indecision which creates a volcano of disaster.
Even in mentioning the action of abortion (without mentioning the unborn), the Senator only addressed the actions of those outside the womb (serving the selfish), so I will keep the response to those as well. Forgive repetition and rambling, but these are the concerns.
I strongly agree with education; particularly regarding the horrible consequences of personal guilt associated with abortion (not mentioned above) along with the alternatives that are mentioned above. I also favor the education of those who decide justice in cases of life termination.
Translation: I hate murder, but I don't think that government should interfere with anyone's CHOICE to kill or not kill (they can't interfere, but they can influence). Contradiction: If there never was a life terminated, then why abhor abortion? If there was a life terminated, then why is one life's termination treated differently than another? It's supporting the act of a mother murdering her own child ("I abhor the fact that Susan Smith's children died, but it was her children to do with as she pleased. It was her choice of her own flesh and blood and so we cannot act as a governing body"??). Where is the line drawn according to the above beliefs?
It rains on the just and unjust alike - our choices don't always determine our destinies, but they do lead us down a road of certain results. People choose to save and experience overflow. People choose debt and experience bankruptcy. People choose to pray and experience satisfaction. People choose drugs and experience addiction. People choose life and experience joy. People choose abortion and experience guilt. People choose truth and experience freedom. People choose crime and experience prison. These results are not true 100% of the time, but by choosing these behaviors, the chances historically steer in the directions of these consequences.
People have the right to choose their own action (regardless of who it affects), but it remains the government's responsibility to bring consequences to a morally wrong action. By not bringing a consequence to an action, then two disturbing effects tend to take place: society believes that their choice is acceptable and consequences still emerge from immoral behavior (It's kind of like a child never being told that the stove is hot, therefore believing that it must be ok. The child then finds out, too late, that it's beyond "wrong" and it's painful). Such pain can be avoided.
The question is not of choice, it is of consequence.
The government can and should encourage both the benefit of abstinence and adoption as well as the disaster of abortion. Omitting a complete education leads to irreversible effects of personal guilt (as well as "abhorrent" child deaths) that grows out of control in a society. Seen or not seen, realized or denied, the devastation does exist and the remedy requires a full knowledge of the choice's consequences. This education may not stop the murders, but it will make a statement of morality. This, the government agrees, is essential.
I am disturbed that this man makes laws, but thankful he's not a lawyer because he would be awful at it.
Enjoy Him, Michelle