Friday, August 22, 2014
“Safe, Legal, and Rare”
Cross-posted at Redstate.
“[Our] core beliefs and values can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.” -Hillary Clinton
The quote above represents the three-pronged appeal the left uses to make abortion feel nice and cozy. In reality, abortion is a brutal and barbaric practice which needs to be sent to history’s landfill to rot with institutions such as slavery.
I want to deconstruct the “safe, legal, and rare” argument one word at a time.
Firstly, there is absolutely no reason why abortion should be safe. That is like saying robbery should be easy, murder should be a breeze, and fraud should be a cakewalk. If abortion is to be stopped, there must be disincentives aimed at it. The left likes to appeal to the sympathy of voters by claiming abortion opponents would seek to return to the days of women using rusty coat hangers in back alleys. While I don’t want women performing abortions on their own, I would much rather it be that difficult, not as simple as getting groceries. I don’t want women to injure or possibly kill themselves. But, should I really feel sympathy when the act they are engaging in is resulting in the killing another human being?
And what rational, reasonable, sane woman would be willing to risk her own life just so that she can absolve responsibility for carrying her baby? The tradeoff simply isn’t worth it. In many areas of law, prohibitions simply lead to the criminal act being pushed underground. In this case, the consequence is too high for it to occur commonplace.
On that note, let me address the legal side of abortion. I don’t believe that the purpose of government is to “regulate morality.” I believe attempts to do so do lead to prohibited acts being pushed underground, leaving the laws ineffective in their goal. I also believe that the proper role of government isn’t to determine how we live, but rather ensure that we live together without violating each others rights. As Locke correctly put it, the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from the intentional actions of others.
That is what separates abortion from drug laws, guns laws, sexual deviance laws, gambling laws, hate crime laws, and other various laws regulating vices. While abortion is immoral and is opposed by many people because it is immoral, that is not a sufficient reason to make it illegal. The reason, rather, is that is deprives a human being of their life. The first purpose of legitimate government is to prevent and prosecute the deliberate taking of life.
And so that leads us to how often abortions should be done. From both a moral and more importantly from a policy view, a legal perspective, abortions should either occur either freely or not at all. There is no middle ground. Abortion is either wrong or right; a standard medical procedure or the killing of an innocent person. Abortion should not be “rare,” it should be nonexistent based on what we know about when a unique life is formed. This “rare” argument is logically unsound, which doesn’t matter to those who use it because it is designed to appeal to emotion.
Finally, I want to address the “War on Women” talking point. My opposition, as well that of others, has nothing to do with the fact that women uniquely have pregnancies. Believe me, if men could get pregnant, I would be just as opposed to abortion. Are we to believe opponents of abortion, many of whom support the death penalty, are somehow engaged in a “War on Men?” Of course not.
My message to the left: Before you assume someone is misogynist, racist, hateful, nativist, etc., try examining the content of their argument. It does take more effort, but if you can understand someone without being prejudging and name-calling, you can give yourself an intellectual pat on the back and know that you are smarter/more informed than most people. You might just be persuaded, too.