Thursday, October 25, 2012

Pragmatic View of Abortion and the 2012 Election


Like many, I am a fan of Joss Whedon's short-lived TV show FIREFLY and its big-screen finale "Serenity". Those who know the show will understand the words of Malcom Reynolds when I say that "I aim to misbehave".

One subject that I tend to avoid writing about is abortion. My views on the topic range from micro to macro. Depending upon which level I write from could cause quite a bit of misunderstanding and confusion. However, the whole picture comes down to my strong beliefs in free will, responsibility, and accountability. My personal morality also takes a role at the micro level. However, this rant is not about my personal (and private) views on the subject. But, I will make an exception to my usual avoidance and discuss the subject, to a degree, this one time.

In the wake of Richard Mourdock's statement concerning his personal moral belief involving abortion and rape, I felt compelled to write a little opinion piece to being people back to pragmatism and reality in these vital days before the election. This little rant applies to both sides of the aisle and will probably garner the ire of many in both camps. When people need a dose of reality introduced by percussive osmosis, it tends to upset those people.

First of all, I have seen Mr. Mourdock's statement misquoted by both sides of the aisle. Those on the left have done so the most, by misquoting him and stating things that Mourdock did not even say. Left-wing pundits said the words they are parroting, not Mr. Mourdock. It demonstrates your ability to research, make up your own mind, and think like a human being when you do so. 

The din of the hullabaloo over Mourdock's statement and the abortion issue in general is a distraction. It is intended to get you to vote based upon something that is not a political issue. It is a psychological deception operation being conducted to make you look at something other than the real issues facing us today. If you jumped into the fray, it worked and you were duped.  

The first truth to consider is a blend of facts and reality. We call this "pragmatism". Despite where along the political spectrum a candidate resides, Roe v Wade happened. That is a fact. The US Supreme Court over-stepped its authority and legislated from the bench in our nation's most evident example of judicial activism. That is a fact. The decision has been filed, and carries the weight of a legislated law. That is a fact.

Candidates may or may not have a stance on the issue. It is a moral debate that many ponder. However, the decision will likely not be overturned for a long time, if ever. It will require a constitutional amendment. Go and read the US Constitution. Within it is an article (Article 5) that directs the process to do so. For a quick refresher, let's look at the key points to the process. First, the amendment will require 67% of each house to vote in favor of the amendment. Then the President will have to send it to the states for ratification. Then 75% of the states must ratify it. Then it will be an amendment.

There are enough legislators who want multiple terms who will not put their political careers on the chopping block, risking never holding public office again. They won't vote for such an amendment. It would be stupid for them to do so. To do so when there are so many other actual constitutional responsibilities to take care of would also create a record of wasting time and resources to generate an amendment that will face such opposition among our citizens. Abortion is such a "hot-button" and sensitive issue that brings drastic passion from both sides of the issue that most state's will be reluctant to consider ratifying such an amendment. Most politicians learned their lessons in the history of prohibition. 

Kids, abortion is not a national issue in the 2012 election year.

Read that again and let it sink in nice and deep:  Abortion is not an issue in national level politics in the 2012 election year.

It isn't important in deciding who your legislators in federal congress will be.

It isn't important in deciding who the two elected members of the executive branch (The President and the Vice President) will be for the next four years.

Pick your jaws up off the ground and take a look at reality.

Read the words I typed. I did not say that the abortion debate isn't an important moral dilemma. It is. It is a great discussion for religious scholars, political demagogues, and people seeking  to set up charities. It is an important topic that so many, on both sides, are passionate about. However, it is not a political issue. It is not a legislative responsibility or power, according to the US Constitution. It is not an executive power or responsibility. It is a moral, ethical, scientific, and theological debate. The topic is of no more political importance than the debate concerning teaching either creationism or evolution in the privacy of your own home (any law that would dictate such would violate the First Amendment). 

First, every attempt to legislate morality has turned out disastrous for our country. Look at prohibition as a great example. The legislature amended the US Constitution to make alcohol illegal. How did that turn out? 75% of adults became criminals. Criminal organizations gained power to the point that they were taking control of many areas because they acted outside of the law. People were murdered over beer, run, and gin. Much needed sales and excise taxes were denied to our government at all levels, thus contributing to the misery felt during the Great Depression. Americans flocked overseas in a huge wave of ex-patriotism. The amendment was one of the most ignorant moves the federal government has ever made.

You cannot legislate morality. All you can do is establish just consequences for breaking the law. You cannot legislate morality. All you can do is insure that immoral and unethical people live with the full weight of their decisions. However, those moral decisions are still theirs.

Stealing is illegal, correct? Do those laws actually stop theft? No.

Murder is illegal, correct? Do those laws stop people from murdering others? No.

Gun laws do not stop gun related crime. All they do is insure that only criminals, who don't care about the law, have guns, leaving law-abiding citizens unprotected and defenseless.

So, if you think Roe v. Wade will be affected by the outcome of this election, regardless of which side of the political spectrum garners control, you are an idiot. Whether you are "pro-life" and believe that your vote will lead to a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion, or you are "pro-abortion" hoping to retain those "rights" granted by Roe v. Wade; the decision will most likely not be overturned anytime soon.

If the abortion debate and the status of Roe v. Wade is of high importance to you in this election, you are an idiot. It is not even an issue in this campaign.

The main issues are individual liberty, the US Constitution, national security, tax policies, the economy, the government dictating your health care, and allowing businesses the freedom and economic stability to do business, thus expanding the economy and create jobs.

If you oppose abortion, the best thing to do is to support a federal fiscal policy that does not give tax revenue to charities that support abortions. It's unconstitutional for them to do so as it is. If you are "pro-choice", support the same policy so you will pay less in taxes and enable  you to donate to the charities that support your cause. In either case, federal tax revenue should not be used.

If you support the federal government paying for abortions, or any other elective surgery, the simple truth is that you support (and are an accomplice to) armed robbery. If you want poor people to have money for abortions, go give them yours. You do not have the right to dictate that what I have earned should go to pay for some complete stranger's elective surgery. If you are "pro-choice", then you MUST support my choice to not have my property used in that way. Keep the federal government out of it.

If you are opposed to abortion, then support a candidate who will grow the economy and allow businesses to make money, hire people, and create jobs. Then those who want abortions because they can't afford to pay for that child will be more capable of doing so. If you support abortion, support that same candidate. Why? Well, that way you can pay for your own abortion without stealing my property or that of others.

If you support abortion as a form of birth control in order to keep the impoverished from taking more in food stamps and government subsidies to take care of those additional lives; then support the candidate who will scale back on government handouts and will, instead, bolster those programs at the state level where the constitutionally (10th Amendment) belong.

If you oppose abortion, vote for the candidate who will enable a society that more rewards paying for your own way and working. If those impoverished families have more working adults, they will have less time and less of an incentive to generate more welfare-babies.

Now, let's give one little reminder of how the left really views abortion. Take a look at China. China (and a few other socialist countries) regulate their populations by forcing families to have abortions after they have given life to their quota of children. That is why the left wants abortion to be state-sponsored. It is so they will be able to force you to have one in the future. If you are really "pro-choice", you do not want the government taking that choice away, including forcing abortions upon anybody. If you are "pro-life", then you really do not want state-sponsored abortion. In that case, your choice is clear -- do not vote for anybody left of center, ever.

Finally, if abortion is your only issue in this election season, you probably need to turn in your voters' registration card and stay out of the booths. It means you are ignorant about the US Constitution. There are issues that are political ones at stake. Abortion is not one of them. If you are pro-choice on the basis of "women's rights", the 14th Amendment forbids special rights for any demographic. If you are pro-life, it is unconstitutional for you to choose a candidate who will attempt to legislate a religious viewpoint onto anybody. If you are pro-choice, that very same argument goes to you as well. Atheism is, by definition, the religion of "no gods". However, with 23 million people out of work, executive regulations that inhibit economic growth and punish prosperity, a new law that established 27 new taxes (21 of them directly on middle-income-earners), a stagnated economy, a national debt crisis, and a failed socialist running for re-election; there are far, far more actual political issues to contend with this election year.

If you are pro-life, go give time or funds to a charity that helps with adoption or other alternatives to a suck-and-scrape. If you are pro-choice, go give your paycheck to Planned Parenthood. Both of you keep your hands off of other people's earnings. Go out and vote on the real issues and the best person to facilitate the American Dream of individual prosperity as a result of individual effort:  Mitt Romney.