Anti-abortionists advocate fetus’ right to life
MIKE DANELEK
mdanelek@mscd.edu

   The logic used by the abortion rights camp has always made me scratch my head. They argue that a woman should have “the right to choose” whether or not they should terminate a pregnancy, because, frankly, it’s “her body.” They drive around with bumper stickers like “Against Abortion? Don’t have one!” The hardcore abortion rights people even advocate abortions beyond the first trimester, when a baby can survive outside its mother’s womb.

   In some ways, the progress this country has made over the years has been remarkable with events such as the elimination of slavery and segregation and the suffrage of women. Yet, in other ways, we have taken a step back, like the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Millions of aborted fetuses later, the state of South Dakota has challenged the decision by making most abortions illegal.

   South Dakota’s decision is a step in the right direction because it advocates life, not death. Eventually, we may one day see Roe v. Wade completely overturned, and that will be a wonderful day for humanity. Sure, it may lead to all-out war with the feminist movement and its liberal supporters, which make abortion its most sacred right. But it will be worth it, as long as anti-abortionists stick to logic and do not waver in the fight.

   Abortion rights people will never get it. Do they really believe that conservatives want Roe v. Wade overturned because they want control of a woman’s body? Do they realize that when a woman aborts a fetus, it’s not what she’s doing to her body that gets people worked up, but what was just done to the body of another soul, whose chance at life has just ended? The abortion rights crowd wants to protect women’s right to choose; anti-abortionists want to protect the fetus’ right to life. I think the latter sounds better.

   The left’s same twisted logic is employed with those who say, “Against abortion? Don’t have one!” This is ridiculous. If a person isn’t a supporter of abortion, it is because they understand that abortion is murder. Therefore, there should be a law against it that applies to everyone. You wouldn’t see someone with a bumper sticker that read, “Against arson? Don’t do it!” That would make no sense, because arson is a crime. People cannot pick and choose which moral values to abide by if they endanger the lives of innocent victims. That’s why we have a thing called “the law.” It’s the cornerstone of civilization.

   Granted, abortion is necessary at rare times, like when the mother’s life is in danger. The toughest issue is whether or not it should be legal if the woman is raped. On the one hand, she did not become pregnant by her own choosing and suffered greatly. But, on the other hand, should the child be the one who has to pay the price? What about adoption?

   Abortion rights people always leave the idea of adoption out of the equation because it’s an alternative that doesn’t involve stopping a beating heart. There is no law that says a woman must keep her baby. Having an abortion as a means of birth control is not an excuse because of the choice of adoption. This is what people should mean by pro-choice, whether the mother should keep the baby or give it to a set of loving parents, not by destroying it. Yet, women continue to abort fetuses as a casual means of birth control, without checking out all the alternatives.

   The Democrats have come to the forefront as the party of “choice.” Over the past few decades, it has slowly become a fact that anyone who wants any real power within the Democratic Party has had to take a firm stand against the abortion rights campaign. People such as Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson and Al Gore all used to lean to the right on the issue, but as they realized the Democrats were progressing toward an abortion rights stance, they changed their tune. Gore, for example, voted on a 1984 bill that an unborn child should be considered “a person” from the time of conception. Sixteen years later, while running for president, Gore called for a rejection of the “anti-choice extremists.”

   Something is fishy here. It’s difficult to trust any belief Democrats claim to have, because most of them will do whatever it takes to get power. It’s all politics. Other liberal presidential hopefuls, like John Kerry, try to play the flip-flop card on this issue. Kerry, in classic fashion, tried during the 2004 debates to convince the voters that he was personally against abortion, but still believed in the woman’s right to choose. So, he claims to be against it? That means he must consider it murder then, right? Yet he believes in the right for others to commit the murder.

   Abortion should never be about politics; the decision of whether it’s right or wrong should be made based upon values. At least we know where the far-left stands, and they know where the conservatives stand. What we should ask ourselves, however, is where would the baby stand?

The Metropolitan welcomes all letters from Metro students, teachers, faculty and administration. Letters must be typed and submitted to the Insight Editor by Monday, 3 p.m. the week of production. Send letters to ngarci20@mscd.edu or leave your letter for Nic Garcia in the Office of Student Media, Tivoli Student Union, Room 313. Editors reserve the right to edit all letters for content, clarity and space. Letters must be signed and dated with contact information for the writer. Letters may be no longer than 300 words. Any submissions longer will be considered for “Their Opinion.” All rules apply to longer essays. Essays may be no longer than 500 words.