The Perpetual Debate

Inspired by the McCain/Obama “Saddleback Forum” (a presidential forum at a mega church held on August 16th), I’ve found myself internally tackling yet again the first and foremost topic of the forum…abortion. Obama has been getting a lot of flak for showing a “nuanced” answer with regards to the grand abortion question which to me shows that his cerebral cortex is still struggling with a clear, concise opinion. He stated that the answer is something scientists and theologians have been struggling with for a long time and the answer is “above his pay grade”. This brought up the question…is it the President’s job to legislate morality? Yet another “nuanced” question…I’m glad that things aren’t as simple as McCain claims it to be. Life is too complex to be simplified for the masses.

So when does a life begin? I think conception/the fertilized egg is a reasonable answer. However, when is it morally acceptable to abort? I believe there’s a vast difference between a fertilized egg and a six month-old fetus (organ development, brain activity, etc…). That doesn’t make it any easier answering the question.

Christians have championed the notion of conception being the point where all rights are bestowed and a person exists. Regardless of how simplistic that might sound, it is reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is the inconsistency of their respect for human life in the abortion debate. They lose their conviction when an American F-16 causes the death of thousands of innocent civilians (collateral damage) including pregnant Iraqi women, that’s not abortion, the pregnant women’s death was the product of a greater good. You would think Christian Republicans would be of a more peaceful ilk. Invading sovereign nations who did nothing to provoke this country is hardly a Christian moral.

I would never let a loved one get an abortion (unless rape/incest is involved). But it's the legal right to abortion is what's up for debate, not abortion itself. And believe it or not, 65% of the population think Roe v. Wade is acceptable. Even if it was overturned that just gives specific state the right to make it illegal.

Here's an example of how words can really muddy up the debate that's at hand. This is from an article I read in the Washinton Post August 20th, 2008.

"On paper, this campaign looks fairly standard. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, is staunchly in favor of abortion rights, while McCain, an Arizona Republican, has compiled a solid record over four Senate terms of opposing abortion. "

What it should've said...

"On paper, this campaign looks fairly standard. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, is staunchly in favor of abortion rights, while McCain, an Arizona Republican, has compiled a solid record over four Senate terms of opposing abortion rights."

Now FoxNews would report it as such...

"Obama, an Illinois Democrat, is staunchly in favor of abortion."