Stupak or not Stupak, that is the question

Found this article on The Daily Beast about the Stupak amendment. (you should read it before reading my post. it’s written by a doctor [a Christian!] whose views on abortion will make you think.)

My first inspiration for this post came from, what else, The Daily Show (which I recently heard described as “niche news for cynics”).
A montage of funny moments from healthcare debate on the House floor included one Republican defending the Stupak amendment. His argument is that tax payers who find abortion morally reprehensible should not have their tax dollars go toward insurance coverage of the procedure (though I’m fairly certain it’s already covered by MedicAid, legal medical procedure that it is).
I wonder, then, what about those of us who think war is morally reprehensible? Do we get a right to choose where our tax dollars go? (Cost of war in Iraq: $700 billion and counting.)

Talk about right to choose. Huh? Am I right?!
*rim shot*

In all seriousness, I understand the polarizing nature of this issue. If you think “life” (soul, etc) begin at conception, it changes things. Even as a pro-choice voter I think the issue’s complicated. I don’t think abortions should just be an easy fix and replace birth control, caution, and good ol’ fashioned virtue.
I’ve just come to think as I’ve grown up that if we’re going to talk about “right to life” there are far more important ways to go there than with unwanted pregnancies.

What about the 1 million people who die from malaria worldwide?
The 3.5 million people who die because they don’t have access to clean water?

Don’t these people have “right to life” too?
Why don’t we have more billboards or bumper stickers about poverty? health? sanitation?

I know my little blog isn’t going to convince anyone. (hell, I used to be a pro-life little kid, standing in “Life Chains,” holding posters where baby seals said “save the humans.” But I was a KID. No one had told me the myriad reasons—physical, financial, relational, social—why a woman might choose not to have a baby.)

My point: abortion is currently a legal medical procedure. All arguments of whether it should be aside, let’s all think twice before we make it difficult for those on government aid to afford one. Let’s ask ourselves, can these people afford to have a baby? Raise a baby? Nurture a baby? Educate a baby?



4 thoughts on “Stupak or not Stupak, that is the question

  1. Which is looking at one side of the issue. But do you still find that in your “medical procedure” that a life is still being taken?

    If the woman did not want the baby, then she should have been responsible in the first place. Let’s face it, it is difficult to get pregnant. There is a small window in which a woman can get pregnant. When a woman engages in sex, then she should take responsibility for the fact that she partook of an act that conceives life. Are we so negligent with life and the weight of creating a baby that we cannot monitor our own bodily functions? It’s animalistic. Most women are not so irregular that they cannot monitor their cycle. Is our “right” to spontanious sex more important than a life? Animalistic is what that is. Most abortions do not take place as a result of rape or incest. And many women who have aborted suffer silently after the abortion. Let’s not just talk about the act. Why deny that there are not consequences to taking the life potentially worse than keeping the life, not just arguing for consequences to keeping the life. I mean if you say it’s a complicated issue then acknowledge that one choice is not always necessarily better than the other. Acknowledge that many women do regret it later. Many women do suffer physically, emotionally worse than had they carried the child. Owned up to their actions.

    So for the majority of those women who choose to conceive life, their desire to not face the consequences of their actions warrant taking their baby’s life? That is what you are saying.

    I do not believe that God will continue to bless a nation who plays God. I just don’t. The proposed solution: to abort, only covers up many larger problems that a woman believes she has relieved herself of, but unfortunately only lead to more problems. You must also consider the demographic who most often aborts. While you may not feel this way, you are unfortunately supporting the cloaked belief of many that it is population control of the lower SES. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. These are mine.

  2. I went back and forth over whether i’d publish this comment, just because I don’t want to launch this blog and turn it into an abortion debate.
    But then I thought it’s worth noting that this issue is so divisive that a total stranger will post a comment that seems even longer than my post.
    At least I’m getting someone to think. Hopefully you’re all thinking, too.
    I’d reiterate that it’s important to read the article I linked to, because this doctor (and Christian, it should be noted) will shed some surprising light.

    I can’t help but get a little defensive when it seems as though I’m being attacked by a stranger. (see “your ‘medical procedure’…” well, no, it’s not really mine…) but I’m not going to continue a fight. I just ask that you read and think, people. That’s what the blog’s all about.


  3. Are you thinking? Can you get past your defensiveness?

    Believing that a baby is too expensive that it should not be given breath to live? So then you’re saying that only people who can afford babies should be allowed to give birth.

    I think you should really think about who your vote and beliefs give ammunition to. Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money. Investigate it. The founder started it out of her belief that certain sects of the population should be controlled.

    By saying “read and think people” are you suggesting that by you noting a book or article, that you expect those who read to automatically come to the same conclusion as you? There is no fight in these words. You are reading this response. Now think. If you do not want me to find you unthinking then don’t read my opinions and conclusions and find me unthinking simply b/c I do not think like you.

    And to call the author of the article Christian, perhaps you should read your Bible and find that it supports life rather than the taking of life for reasons based in fear.

  4. See, I am learning your stance on abortion. Interesting and it sounds like you have given it thought and consideration. It is also interesting to read “SJ 2008” and wonder if it concurs with “SJ 2011”.

Comments are closed.