Wednesday, January 03, 2007

My views on abortion

My views on abortion have changed over the last few years. I am 39 years old and I now have a 3 year old child (Graydon) and a 5 year old child (Kayla.)

When I was younger I tended to think abortion was often wrong; however, I fiercely believed that everyone has to have the freedom to make their own choices. I was 100% Pro-Choice; however, I always felt that I would not be involved in an abortion if I had any say in the matter.

I watched the birth of both of our children. Graydon was born about 7 weeks early. He was "delivered" 45 minutes from when we entered the hospital. Once they hooked their machines up to Karena to monitor her and the baby they "panicked." I have NEVER seen a room fill up with so many medical personnel. It was frightening. The doctor actually and literally ripped Graydon from my wife's womb. There was no labor at all, they just cut her open and ripped him out.

I think this experience helped change my views on abortion...

Here is what I currently think about abortion:

1. I think Roe v Wade should be overturned at once. It is NOT the Federal Government's
Constitutional responsibility to determine how each of the fifty states handle abortion. I
think each of the fifty states should determine their own laws on how to handle abortion.
2. I am in favor of abortion in cases where the safety of the mother is a concern.
3. I believe that parents MUST be involved in all decisions regarding pregnant minors under
their care.
4. I am in favor of the ban on "partial-birth" abortion.

Abortion is a tough topic; however, I think that many people share views similar to mine...

Mike Sylvester

12 comments:

Tim Zank said...

Your position pretty well sums up my feelings on the subject as well.
I don't support the whacked out pro-life groups nor do I support the pro-choice feminists where all is black and white, I feel it is a terribly personal and emotional issue. As a young man I was totally pro choice, but like you, I had kids and I was there to watch all 3 of them being born and two that died shortly after birth. It changes you.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

I am extremely sorry to hear about the kids you lost!

I cannot imagine what that would be like.

My older sister died the same way.

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

Bold of you to share so candidly. But curious as to the timing?

Also, few questions, if you don't mind:

1. Do you believe it's the right of each state to determine whether murder of a (born) person should be criminalized? If not, what's the difference? In other words, if Alabama decided not to criminalize murder, would you want the Feds to step in?

2. If Roe was overturned, and Indiana could decide the issue, and say, it was put to a referendum, would you vote to criminalize the act? If so, would both the mother and doctor serve time? And relatedly (it's a very slippery slope, you know), would you vote to ban RU486?

3. Does the LP Allen County have a party position?

Tim Zank said...

Scott, as for my timing, just a response to Mike's post. I can't say why he brought the subject up.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, Tim, my comment was actually directed toward Mike. However, I, too, am sorry for your loss.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Scott:

I had a reader send me an email asking me to clarify my opinion on Abortion. I always post MY OPINIONS not the opinions of The Libertarian Party of Allen County.

Scott's questions:

1. This is a GREAT question and I had to think about it for awhile before answering it! I DO BELIEVE that each state should have its own laws regarding murder. I do not think murder should be a Federal issue if the murder occurred in one specific state.

If Alabama were to decide that murder of a born person was legal I would have a large ethical problem with Alabama. I would choose not to live in Alabama. I would NOT want The Federal government to get involved...

The Terry Schiavo case is the exact same issue to me. Florida handled the case and The Federal government had NO BUSINESS getting involved. I strongly believe in The Constitution and the rights of the fifty states.

2. This is another great question. I almost put this in my original post but I thought my view would be hard to explain...

If Roe v Wade were over-turned I would consider the referendum VERY CAREFULLY before voting on it. As long as the referendum had reasonable exceptions I would vote in favor of a bill that would "criminalze" abortion. To me reasonable exceptions would include:
1. Safety of the mother.
2. Rape of the mother.
3. Incest.
4. Age of the mother in certain cases.

Your next question is would I vote to make the doctor and mother serve time. If the law had reasonable exceptions then yes I would vote for the mother and doctor to both serve time.

I think I am against RU486. I am in favor of the "Morning after pill;" however, RU486 I think I am opposed to.

3. The Allen County LP does NOT have an official position on abortion. I would GUESS that more of our members are pro-choice then pro-life; however, I know three who are pro-life. I also know TWO practicing and one past minister who are Indiana Libertarians and are pro-life!

Mike Sylvester

Andy Bodoh said...

Mr. Greider, I thought your first question was interesting, and I hope you don't mind if I offer an answer.

You wrote:

"Do you believe it's the right of each state to determine whether murder of a (born) person should be criminalized? If not, what's the difference? In other words, if Alabama decided not to criminalize murder, would you want the Feds to step in?"

What you seem to be implying by this question is that the Federal government obviously has the power to “step in” if a state decriminalized murder, and should similarly have the power to “step in” if the state could and did not decriminalize abortion.

First of all, one must recognize that there are both legal and moral issues here. While the moral one difficult and complex to unravel, the legal question—or more precisely the Constitutional question—is easier to consider.

Mr. Sylvester claims, “It is NOT the Federal Government's Constitutional responsibility to determine how each of the fifty states handle abortion.” Because “responsibility” denotes the minimum standard of one’s actions that one may be able to legitimately exceed (i.e. it is not a child’s responsibility to serve his parents breakfast in bed, but it is still a good thing to do), I understand Mr. Sylvester’s statement, as I think you do, to mean the Federal government has no right to determine how each state handles abortion.

If this is what you trying to get at by your question, than yours is standard Constitutional question: Does the Federal Government have the authority to involve itself in the legislation and enforcement of criminal law (such as homicide of the born and or unborn) within a state. This simple answer is that the Federal Government has that authority if that authority is granted it by the Constitution. The strongest argument that the federal government has the legitimate authority to involve itself in such state issues lies in last clause of the first section of the fourteenth amendment: “No State shall. . .deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However the application of this clause to the issue of abortion is a matter of debate even among pro-life Constitutional scholars.

In other words, it may be that the Federal government does not have “the right” to “step in” if any state should decriminalize murder of the born or unborn, and while that fact might not be morally “right,” it may well be legally “right.” This is no trifle, for to say that the federal government should step in merely because we “want” them to step in is to challenge the legal fundamental structure of a limited federal government based on law on which our government is based.

Anonymous said...

Murder is prosecuted under state statute in every state of the Union. There is no federal law that says states must make murder illegal. Murder is also illegal under federal law. So... If Alabama chooses to make murder legal it is legal and the federal government can do nothing to prevent it. That being said, the federal government can prosecute someone who violated federal law regardless if there is a state court involved. (This is seen in California's attempt to legalize pot. Just because it is legal in California for medical purposes doesn't preclude the federal government from prosecuting pot smokers.)

Roe V. Wade is bad law. It is the Supreme Court creating law, which goes well beyond their allotted power and breaches the separation of powers by crossing into the legislative arena. (It created law where there was none.)

Congress has no problem with the Supreme Court's action, as they are chicken shits, and do not.. under any circumstances want to vote on abortion. So they allow the Supreme Court to overstep their bounds.

We lost the states rights battle when Fort Sumter was fired upon... It’s been down hill in terms of personal freedom since then. Kind of ironic if you think about it. A war fought (at least in part) to free slaves began the slippery slope that may enslave us all.

Apryl Hoot said...

As the birth mom of three, adoptive mom of five Special Needs kids, let me give a different perspective, decidedly prolifer that I am. Its always been simpel to me. A human baby is a baby human from the start. It doesnt magically change from a cat or a toad or some other animal (other than HUMAN) post conception through birth. Its scientifcally proven in utero a BABY can feel pain, suck its thumb, cry, have hiccups....etc. IN a PBA how can it be justified to subject a PERSON
tot he cruel and unhumane treatment PETA would have major hissies over if we tried it with animals? Also, I am witness every day to what abortion does to a CHILD. Miek has met my son, the victim of a botched abortion at 24 weeks....adotped from Russia, but the same fiascos occur in the US. (Check out a young woman named Gianna Jessen.) Or the baby girl born in New York post failed abortion minus arms. My son lost both legs but not the spirit which drives him to succeed and function without whining. He works harder every blessed day to do what his peers do without thinking. He puts his legs on every morning like most people put on clean underwear. He plays baseball, wrestles, and plays basketball with normally put together kids but you can sure see the impact soemoen else's CHOICE had on his life. Not fair! Pro choice isnt a choice...its selfish and lacks respect for life in general...not to mention one's self.

Andrew Kaduk said...

My opinion on this topic has evolved drastically in the last couple of years, specifically because I had a couple of chillun's of my own.

My stance is this: If someone either has a good enough reason (in their own mind) or a disfunctional conscience, let them abort. That should clean a lot of the algae out of the shallow end of the gene pool.

I realize that Social Darwinism is taboo these days, but I just can't bring myself to care what morons do with themselves, so long as my kids are safe from the BS of these fools and their (potential) offspring.

Call me selfish, call me a pragmatist or just call me a dickhead, that's where I stand.

John Good said...

Andy's right on this one. In short, you have a womb? Okay, it belongs to you. Nobody else has a right to police your personal decisions.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but how did losing a child make you pro-abortion? If anything, wouldn't it make you realize the value and preciousness of life?

I will never understand these pro-murder, *cough* I mean pro-choice, activists.