There’s Much More Than Meets The Eye With Pro-Life Pro-Choice Stances
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Having read an item on the website Black Community News about legislation sponsored by Ohio State Representative Bill Patmon (D, 10th House District, Cleveland) that would “block state funding” to Planned Parenthood, I thought it important to share some notes, observations and thoughts on the topic presented therein.
The legislation of which he is author and principle sponsor, HB 294, is “To enact section 3701.034 of the Revised Code to require the Department of Health to ensure that state funds and certain federal funds are not used either to perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract or affiliate with any entity that performs or promotes elective abortions.”
The Columbus Dispatch reported on a pro-life event at the Ohio state capitol and wrote that “At the Ohio Statehouse, a crowed [sic] of more than 100 cheered as Rep. Bill Patmon, D-Cleveland, announced plans to introduce a bill that would strip state funding from Planned Parenthood.” A video excerpt from his address to the pro-life rally sponsored by the Ohio Right To Life group at the Ohio statehouse Thursday, July 28, 2015 is found below.
The majority of abortions are performed in ethnic minority communities.
A 30-year study by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute revealed that “Black women account for 37% of abortions, non-Hispanic White women for 34%, Hispanic women 22% and women of other races 8%.” Current data on their website reports that “Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25%, and women of other races for 9%.”
Using the longitudinal data, minorities account for 67% of all abortions; using data currently available on their website, 64% of all abortion recipients are minority – while those same non-White populations account for about 1/3 (33%) of the American population.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 57.4% of the abortions performed in Georgia in 2006 were performed on African-American women, but Blacks make up only 30% of Georgia’s population. Nationwide, the pattern is similarly stacked against Black babies — Black women have approximately 37% of all abortions each year, while Blacks make up only 13% of the national population.
And yet, no one is forcing those women to have abortions. They all voluntarily chose elective procedures.
I think our nation should have a genuine discussion about all matters touching upon this topic. And honestly, it’s not only about abortion, or forced birth. It’s much more complex than that, because AFTER a baby is born, in addition to love, it needs the ongoing care of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. And we can start with love, because rarely, if ever, have I read, or heard about anti-abortion/pro-life individuals or groups advocating adoption, or paying for ALL costs associated with a pregnancy, which also includes all of the above (healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, education, etc.) for the mother.
And though it should go without saying, I will mention it, that a father’s ability to provide ongoing support for his family through his job – whether as employee, small business owner, or entrepreneur – is equally important, and if an employer’s compensation and wages are not substantial enough to fully provide for one person, how could it possibly support two, or three? And what shall we say of the unwed working mother?
There is a dignifying effect in all work, and the labor of every noble human endeavor is valuable precisely because all human effort is worthy of reward.
The Apostle Paul put it this way when he restated the dictum in Deuteronomy, “You must not muzzle the ox that treads the grain.” That idea is of paramount importance because it is repeated verbatim twice afterward – first in the Apostle Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 9, and secondly again by Paul in his First Letter to Timothy, chapter 5, verse 18.
When ideas or thoughts are repeated, it re-emphasizes their importance. Renown lexicographer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) expressed it as much in Rambler No. 2 (24 March 1750) when he wrote, “Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed.”
Not caring for the living is tantamount to abortion.
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
Comedian Stephen Colbert put it this way:
And then, there’s the related matter of contraception, which some have reticently demonstrated a reluctance to support through 3d party external insurers, going so far as the United States Supreme Court to obtain decisions in their favor, arguing that they should not offer (much less pay for), and therefore deny women the opportunity to exercise independent, autonomous control over their personal, private medical decisions because it is an affront to a corporation’s religion (as if Jesus died & was resurrected to save corporations, rather than humans). Oral Contraceptive use significantly lowers pregnancy, and by extension, abortion for unintended pregnancies, which comprise the vast majority of all elective abortions.
Until the time at which we begin to “get real” about this matter, and stop the pandering to emotions (and that’s largely what this issue has become), both sides will continue to be at loggerheads with each other over this matter.
It should also be borne in mind, that individuals have a right to their own bodies. No one wants to be told what they can, or cannot do with their own bodies. Even prisoners have Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and that is precisely how it should be. Yes, prisoners have restricted rights, but they are rights none the less.
To illustrate, consider burn victims. Should tissue be autologously harvested from their bodies and transferred to the burn site? It is common to so do. Should tissue be harvested from cadaveric specimens and transferred to burn victims? It is common to so do. Cadaveric specimens of many varieties are presently being used in as many procedures, including bone grafts, and other procedures. And, we autologously harvest veins and transfer them in cardiac procedures. We also use cadaveric venous specimens.
At what point will government say “we will not allow you to manage or own your own body, or its tissue”? Isn’t that the moral equivalency of slavery to so assert?