"the dumbest blog i've ever seen."

    "Get out a little more dude."

    "Is it more conservative to write about Red Bull, spelling errors, or whining about liberal teachers?" -Former contributor

    "a well-kept and activist-orientated blog"-Chris Collins, Seattle Times

    It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

    -Samuel Adams

    Comments are only subject to editing in case of spam or malicious, unrelated content. Dissenting opinion on this blog will never be censored

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Abortion article disregards a lot of other stuff

UPDATE: to clear up the confusion you can now click here to see the original article.


Being a fairly adamant pro-life person, I'm always disappointed to see only pro-choice articles in the opinion section of The Western Front. But at the same time, it doesn't seem like a rare enough occurrence to write home about.

However, for as accusing as the tone of the article was, it seemed filled with just plain unfounded and fuzzy-logic arguments. I'd like to point out and comment on a few of the highlights and then leave you with a chance to pray for the state of The Western Front (I had to work the National Day of Prayer in there somewhere).

"Conservatives should not use their political power to attack constitutional provisions granting women the right to choose.

"House Republicans successfully passed H.R. 748, or the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, Wednesday."
Actually, 54 democrat representatives voted in favor of the bill. It wasn't just the republican representatives pushing through the bill with their majority.
"The bill would represent the fifth measure aimed at reducing the number of abortions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to the article."
It seems to me like a ton of liberal democrats are in favor of reducing the number of abortions, what's wrong with that?
"Parental consent laws are unnecessary for stable and supportive families, and they are ineffective for unstable families."
I guess she's implying that the vast majority of families are one or the other? I'd guess that the vast majority are somewhere in between where the laws could definitely be a benefit (not that they wouldn't in the two above situations).
"Women do not have abortions as a matter of convenience, but as a matter of necessity."
That's simply not true. Maybe it's possible that there are some instances where it's a matter of necessity but it's outright false to call all abortions a matter of necessity.
"Parental consent laws for abortions will only have negative consequences."

And just when you thought you had seen it all, Kuck clearly outlines the logic behind the article for all to examine.
"Whether abortions should be legal relies on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. The answer to this question is based on a person's beliefs.

Separation of church and state reflects the American value that citizens do not want their government to decide their beliefs for them. This is why abortion needs to remain a personal choice."

It took me a while to grasp the logic of this sequence, but once I did I realized the whole basis for her abortion views is quite simple.
whether abortion should be legal = when/if fetus is a person
When/if fetus is a person = a belief
then because of separation of church and state
Constitutional rules =/= anything that comes from a belief
Constitutional rules trump other laws
Therefore the "Constitutional provisions" providing for legal abortion should not be subject to whether they should be legal or not. That's a stretch of logic if I've ever seen one.

After that she goes on though and makes the accusation:
"What is important to understand is that an argument is taking place between legislators in the federal government using religious beliefs to deteriorate the constitutional rights Roe v. Wade established."
Whoa now. Where did the "religious" part come in? Kuck, with no shred of backup in her article suddenly makes parental consent laws something based on religious beliefs.

"While conservatives usually advocate less government control in other areas, such as social programs and the economy, they are pushing for more government control regarding what a woman does with her own body."
Actually, they are putting more government control regarding what doctors and other non-parents do with a young girl's body (and that of her baby) without the parent's permission.

The bottom line, I guess, is that I don't mind arguing with an article that supports abortion rights. No big deal. But this article doesn't even give support for abortion. It throws out a few outrageous statements, ignores some facts, and uses a contorted logic to demonstrate the cause's immunity from anyone's ideas or beliefs. I'm not sure why the Front chose to print that article but I am really hoping that the Front is moving toward and not away from better quality of opinion letters. I'd also like to encourage Ms. Kuck to look deeper into what the church and state issue was really about.