I saw this and thought of the upcoming entitlement program discussion. The statement from Santorum is a little surprising but it brings up a lot of issues, like abortion, social security, and the declining birthrate.
I kind of liked Santorum until I read this comment. I disagree with his statement, but it is interesting considering China's recent proposed relaxation of the one child policy. We talked in class about European countries birthrate problems. I think I recently read the the US birthrate dropped below replacement levels(not considering immigration and also the impact of the recession). I wonder if the US needs to be concerned about birthrates?
I, like Aaron, disagree with this comment. Yet I also found myself agreeing with his later comments about supporting families and children. I think he would fall more in line with the concerned view in his intentions with this statement but I find myself inclined to want to listen to his ideas. Perhaps that is a good middle ground to begin conversations about family policy. Rather than always focusing on where we are opposed with each other we can focus on where we agree.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article. The comments to it were even more interesting. I do not know if having all those children would help with Social Security all that much, but I do not like abortion. I found some of the comments posted to the article to be utterly repugnant. This is perhaps because of two aspects of my background: as I have mentioned in earlier posts, I come from a background that is actually perhaps less individualistic than others in our country. The whole concept of "what's best for me" is deplorable and revolting to me. Second, I was raised in an environment where children and infants, even before birth, are considered actual human beings, a concept that appears to be foreign to some of the authors of those comments. In my eyes, they do have rights and are just as worthy of consideration as any adult. In fact, I feel infants and children deserve more consideration than adults, adults being more able to take care of themselves. To cut off a life for convenience's sake (which some, if not many, abortions appear to be) is atrocious, an abominable act of selfishness characteristic of the this culture of individualism. Though I think that in some instances it may be the lesser of two evils, I doubt that all of the abortions mentioned were for, say, medical reasons.
ReplyDeleteI think once another life begins, it is no longer just about the woman and what she can do with her body. The rights of another individual nust now be taken into consideration.
Of course, I am not a woman, so I am perhaps unqualified to make any comment on what they do or don't do. But such are my private feelings, or rather, my public feelings, for it is one of the few issues on which I have a firm stand. It is nice to be able to I have an actual position on something for once
My views on abortion and "choice." For the sake of time, I will quote a nonreligious argument against abortion.
ReplyDelete"Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to, but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
"What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of, or the threat to the woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
"The woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else's irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice."
This argument (along with more deeply rooted religious beliefs regarding the role of family and the divinity of mankind) constitutes my feelings about abortion "rights."
Abortion culture is certainly among the great factors responsible for the crisis that Social Security faces today. Abortion culture has tainted our people's perspective regarding the value of children. When childrearing becomes a matter of convenience and selfishness, rather than a matter of duty and love, naturally we see plummeting fertility rates as a result. For many, the accessibility of abortion on demand makes sex a thing of only personal indulgence. Family, personal responsibility, and genuine love all get thrown out the window. ABSOLUTELY, whether you agree or not, abortion culture has caused our fertility rates to plummet--and a host of other huge problems.
To start off I want to agree with the others that I am against abortion except for instances of incest and rape as Mark mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteIn reading this article, I found it interesting that abortion is used to identify lost tax revenues and further limiting the sustainability of Social Security. I think the statement presumes a lot about the women that are following through with abortions. I have a hard time agreeing with any statement like this that does not also include the demographic characteristics & SES status of the women having abortions. Maybe due to the cost of abortions all those having abortions are of higher SES but I would not bet on it. I would imagine that a percent of those women and children would have ended up using the social welfare and medical programs (adding to the expense) causing Santorum estimates to be grossly overstated. That being said, I would much rather help children with social welfare programs than not have them around at all.