Pity that isn't true: Debate Issue Number 1 - Abortion

Note: This is the first on what will be a regular series of posts that feature myself against a generic Republicant both running for an unnamed federal office. The purpose of this is two-fold; one is to show you that I have no business running for political office (which has been suggested to me more than thrice) as I am unable to curtail my language to television-friendly sound bites and two, to show the Democrats of this nation just how easy it can be to refute the idiocy of the positions these morons take. Please note that this is a Generic Republican candidate I am debating, not any specific person, although the views are consistent with views espoused by candidates we've all seen and heard on television and radio this year.

Republican Candidate: On the question of abortion it is my belief that conception is the moment that life begins, and as such abortion is tantamount to killing a human being. Life is sacred and the idea that taking the life of an innocent is wrong is one that is understood by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and people of all faiths and beliefs. Because of the basic tenant that life is sacred, the taking of life must be considered wrong and unjust. I am against abortion in nearly every case - exceptions will occasionally need to be made based upon the medical health of the mother and certain types of inescapable trauma - and I am against using federal moneys to support any organization that provides for abortion in any form.

Me: So your position is a moral one; that you are against abortion because you believe that life is sacred.

Republican: That is correct.

Me: Pity that isn't true.

I'd say that about 95% of all elective abortions are done for the same reason; that the mother isn't ready. She isn't ready to go through the whole process of having a child. She isn't ready to raise that child. She may not have the financial resources to provide for that child. So your position is to force a child upon a person who isn't ready for it. The problem there is that you do nothing for the child once it's been born. Hell, given how many cuts to prenatal care and health care your party is responsible for you may push that woman into deep debt because she couldn't afford the medical expenses alone, let alone those of raising a child.

Your party has been responsible for cuts to just about every program that would give support to a woman that you've forced into this position. You've cut education. You've cut programs to provide support and care for newborns. You've made cuts to food programs that would help feed these children. On the plus side, you've managed to get the child born. On the minus side, you then expose it to the elements on the hills outside of Sparta.

You cannot claim that life is sacred, that innocent life is sacred, if you are unwilling to help provide for that life once it has been brought into the world. If that life is so sacred then you have to provide for it like a father, and you have no intention of doing so. Your intention is to turn our nation into a deadbeat dad.

Republican: These children can be adopted if the mother is unable to provide for them. There is a waiting list for children to be adopted and we could solve two problems at once.

Me: Setting aside for a moment the virtual prison sentence of forcing a woman to give birth to a child that she will not raise, I also have to point out that this is also untrue. There is a waiting list for babies, not children. Ask any foster kid who doesn't get adopted - which is a shamefully large number. Your premise has established that people who adopt should be able to put their own stamp on raising the child and not be burdened with a history that a child who isn't a newborn doesn't have. It's as if you're saying that these other children, whose numbers are greater than all of the people attempting to adopt children in this country combined, are somehow damaged. That's just mean.

And I put it to you that it's meanness that you are proposing we support. You are asking that we force women into a position they do not want. There's a word for that; rape.

There is nothing wrong with being opposed to abortion on moral grounds. In fact, I find that commendable and worthy of praise. But to be that without creating a support system that continues to support that life isn't being consistent with this morality and that I find to be reprehensible and morally inconsistent - something that a person who holds the job we are both asking people to give us should not be.

Republican: Are you saying then that it is better for that child to not be born?

Me: I am saying that the person who would be responsible for the choices that follow be the person who makes that choice, and that includes the right to have an abortion as one of the options. That's not the government who makes that choice. That's not the moral code of any person or doctor that makes that choice. It is the woman who makes that choice and I believe that we as lawmakers do not have the right to put restrictions on a choice so personal that those of us outside each individual situation cannot comprehend the process that ultimately leads to that decision.

As for your position, make it consistent and then we can have a real dialogue. Otherwise you're just a flyer on a bulletin board and nothing more.