PRO-LIFE
"Make Georgia FREE Again!"
What is the conflict between PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE?
The "abortion question" has been and continues to be one of the most divisive issues in our country. Is there a way for We the People to come together on this issue, without engaging in soul-crushing compromise, or are we doomed to unending conflict over this question?
Those who believe that individual LIFE begins at conception say that ABORTION IS MURDER and therefore is a violation of the unborn child's unalienable Right to Life. This is the PRO-LIFE perspective.
On the other hand, those who believe that a pregnant woman has the right to choose for themselves whether or not to get an abortion say that any such interference is a violation of the given women's basic Right of Medical Freedom. This is the PRO-CHOICE perspective.
Clearly these two opposing perspectives cannot BOTH be right... right?
The first conclusion we can draw is based on proper constitutional authority. The US Constitution does not include the power to regulate medical or healthcare policy at all. Therefore, the federal government should not be authorizing, regulating, or funding abortions, regardless of whether or not abortions are determined to be acceptable on the state level.
However, this constitutional argument does not resolve the Abortion question, but rather it merely establishes the correct jurisdiction for considering legal standing. Thus, the Abortion question needs to be addressed by the Georgia General Assembly, and any and all federal attempts to authorize or regulate or finance abortions in the State of Georgia should be NULLIFIED.
As to how the Abortion question should be addressed by the state, we must consider the question of when individual life begins. For if it can be established scientifically when individual life begins, then there is no question that such an individual has the same Right to Life as any other individual, and that it would be the DUTY of the state to protect this Right to Life, the same as with any other living individual. Clearly this point must be somewhere between conception and birth.
Let us start by considering the point at which an unborn child could survive if prematurely removed from its mother (viability). If there is any point after which an unborn child has the Right to LIFE, clearly viability is it, since such a child is prove-ably a living individual, deserving protection by the State of Georgia from any attempt at abortion.
Thus, we are left with the interval from conception to viability. Next let's consider the heartbeat. If it could be scientifically established that the existence of a heartbeat was sufficient evidence of individual life, then it would be unreasonable to legally allow abortions after a heartbeat.
However, we cannot yet determine with scientific certainty that a heartbeat is proof of individual life... and the further back in terms of fetus development we look, the harder it is to firmly establish in a scientific sense the beginning of the individual life of the unborn.
So, what are we to say in the absence of scientific certainty? Should we let each pregnant woman decide the question up to viability? What if we make the wrong decision by allowing for the abortion of an unborn child who is a living individual? This would be wrong.
On the other hand, what if the unborn child were not yet a distinct individual, but rather simply a clump of tissue making up part of the pregnant female? Should we force such a woman to go through with the pregnancy, which would be a violation of her Right of Medical Freedom? This would be wrong.
Furthermore, does it matter how a given woman becomes pregnant? What if she was raped or was a victim of incest? What if there is a significant risk to the life of the mother if she were to have the baby? Who will be held responsible for the death of the mother in such a scenario?
The fact is, in scientific terms, we do not have full knowledge as to whether or not the fetus is a distinct individual, who by definition has the Right to Life, even though many people believe Life begins at conception.
Assuming both sides are sincere in their belief on this question, should we side with one group over the other in legal terms simply based upon the opinion of a majority of voters or of a majority of legislators, when we do not do this for any other natural Right?
These are tough questions!
To be fair to all, because we do not know with scientific certainty exactly when individual life begins, no matter what we decide, we must accept the possibility that we could be wrong.
Therefore, what makes the most sense to this candidate is that we consider the path of the least harmful possible mistake. Is it better to mistakenly violate the Right of Medical Freedom of a pregnant female by forcing her to endure childbirth against her will, or is it better to mistakenly violate the Right to Life of an unborn living child, being an accessory to murder of an innocent human being?
In the reasoned opinion of this candidate, clearly it is much better to be guilty of forcing a woman to have an unwanted child than it is to be an accessory to murder!
Therefore, it is with the utmost respect for the dilemma faced by many pregnant women that this candidate sides with the lesser of two possible evils, with special consideration in certain cases of rape, incest, or a high medical risk for the would-be mother.
[note: consideration should always be given to how best to provide for a child who results from an unwanted pregnancy.]
Those who believe that individual LIFE begins at conception say that ABORTION IS MURDER and therefore is a violation of the unborn child's unalienable Right to Life. This is the PRO-LIFE perspective.
On the other hand, those who believe that a pregnant woman has the right to choose for themselves whether or not to get an abortion say that any such interference is a violation of the given women's basic Right of Medical Freedom. This is the PRO-CHOICE perspective.
Clearly these two opposing perspectives cannot BOTH be right... right?
The first conclusion we can draw is based on proper constitutional authority. The US Constitution does not include the power to regulate medical or healthcare policy at all. Therefore, the federal government should not be authorizing, regulating, or funding abortions, regardless of whether or not abortions are determined to be acceptable on the state level.
However, this constitutional argument does not resolve the Abortion question, but rather it merely establishes the correct jurisdiction for considering legal standing. Thus, the Abortion question needs to be addressed by the Georgia General Assembly, and any and all federal attempts to authorize or regulate or finance abortions in the State of Georgia should be NULLIFIED.
As to how the Abortion question should be addressed by the state, we must consider the question of when individual life begins. For if it can be established scientifically when individual life begins, then there is no question that such an individual has the same Right to Life as any other individual, and that it would be the DUTY of the state to protect this Right to Life, the same as with any other living individual. Clearly this point must be somewhere between conception and birth.
Let us start by considering the point at which an unborn child could survive if prematurely removed from its mother (viability). If there is any point after which an unborn child has the Right to LIFE, clearly viability is it, since such a child is prove-ably a living individual, deserving protection by the State of Georgia from any attempt at abortion.
Thus, we are left with the interval from conception to viability. Next let's consider the heartbeat. If it could be scientifically established that the existence of a heartbeat was sufficient evidence of individual life, then it would be unreasonable to legally allow abortions after a heartbeat.
However, we cannot yet determine with scientific certainty that a heartbeat is proof of individual life... and the further back in terms of fetus development we look, the harder it is to firmly establish in a scientific sense the beginning of the individual life of the unborn.
So, what are we to say in the absence of scientific certainty? Should we let each pregnant woman decide the question up to viability? What if we make the wrong decision by allowing for the abortion of an unborn child who is a living individual? This would be wrong.
On the other hand, what if the unborn child were not yet a distinct individual, but rather simply a clump of tissue making up part of the pregnant female? Should we force such a woman to go through with the pregnancy, which would be a violation of her Right of Medical Freedom? This would be wrong.
Furthermore, does it matter how a given woman becomes pregnant? What if she was raped or was a victim of incest? What if there is a significant risk to the life of the mother if she were to have the baby? Who will be held responsible for the death of the mother in such a scenario?
The fact is, in scientific terms, we do not have full knowledge as to whether or not the fetus is a distinct individual, who by definition has the Right to Life, even though many people believe Life begins at conception.
Assuming both sides are sincere in their belief on this question, should we side with one group over the other in legal terms simply based upon the opinion of a majority of voters or of a majority of legislators, when we do not do this for any other natural Right?
These are tough questions!
To be fair to all, because we do not know with scientific certainty exactly when individual life begins, no matter what we decide, we must accept the possibility that we could be wrong.
Therefore, what makes the most sense to this candidate is that we consider the path of the least harmful possible mistake. Is it better to mistakenly violate the Right of Medical Freedom of a pregnant female by forcing her to endure childbirth against her will, or is it better to mistakenly violate the Right to Life of an unborn living child, being an accessory to murder of an innocent human being?
In the reasoned opinion of this candidate, clearly it is much better to be guilty of forcing a woman to have an unwanted child than it is to be an accessory to murder!
Therefore, it is with the utmost respect for the dilemma faced by many pregnant women that this candidate sides with the lesser of two possible evils, with special consideration in certain cases of rape, incest, or a high medical risk for the would-be mother.
[note: consideration should always be given to how best to provide for a child who results from an unwanted pregnancy.]
Do you want to protect ALL HUMAN LIFE in Georgia?
