I don't intend this post to be an argument for abortion. Although, after much consideration (soul-searching if you will) I find myself more pro than con to choice.
What triggered this line of thought was a blog I read over a week ago that really bothered me. I won't link to it since it matters more what was said than who said it but basically this person thought they could never vote for Obama (or anyone) who supported abortion, regardless of their views in other areas. They did not say that they would automatically vote for the other candidate (if we're talking the US, yes just the one other anyone mentions) but either way it is not a vote for who otherwise may be the better candidate. Because of one issue.
I can't look at this from the perspective of a mother but I'll just say why this bothered me.
1. The traditional (but I believe fairly sound) argument that if abortions are illegal women will still have them but through much more dangerous means (The Worst of Times, Particia G. Miller).
2. This candidate that supposedly supports abortion could still have a bigger impact on the overall number of babies aborted in the long run depending on their other policies. Are they going to do more to make birth control more accessible? Lessen poverty? Maybe it is more important to combat the conditions created by society that allow for unwanted pregnancy (poverty, rape, no access to birth control/education, abusive relationships, etc. etc.)
3. this is purely subjective but it appears a bit....selfish? stubborn? To risk the future of an entire group/people/country based on one stubbornly held belief.
Maybe I'm wrong. This post seems to take the position that this person is the best candidate aside from this one belief. This hasn't been proven. I don't love the idea of women choosing to end a life (in the majority of cases that they indirectly or directly chose to create) but I do believe in giving people the option to choose, even the wrong choice. I'm surprising myself.
2 comments:
I think I read the same blog post. And had a similar reaction to yours. Which also surprised me.
I'm still pro-life, but I'm also very aware that I live in a broken world and can't dictate morality. Neither do I think that it should be the sole deciding factor when choosing who should run a country.
I once had to explain to someone that pro-life means that I also value the life of the woman. So I refuse to judge, condemn or berate those who've made choices my heart breaks over.
Hi miss nadine. I'm so impressed by your recent career moves (ie. day of freelancing). Which is likely part of why you said what I was trying to say (mostly) but more eloquently. exactly, the life o the woman should be protected, each person lives with their own choices.
It is so hard to be completely black or white on an issue. I find myself never able to be just one or the other, firmly.
Post a Comment