Abortion and gun
control are two hot-button issues that have been in the news lately. Abortion because of the release of a series of undercover
videos discussing the sale of organs from aborted fetuses; gun control
most recently because of the shooting in
Lafayette.
Let me say from the outset that I don't agree with the type of ambush journalism that led to these videos, nor do I think
it is appropriate to politicize tragedies or make policy decisions based solely
off of one event or anecdote. But now that these issues are brought to
the forefront of the national conversation, the question is, how do we respond?
Of course, these two issues are very different. It seems
that those who are in favor of one are opposed to the other. But as I
have listened to various opinions and dialogue over the past few weeks on these
subjects, I have been struck by the many parallels.
For example, both issues are highly controversial with staunch
supporters and fierce opposition. Both are advocated by entrenched
lobbying organizations, namely Planned Parenthood and the NRA. Both
issues have become litmus tests for the party bases. Both gun ownership
and abortion are recognized as rights by the federal government, whether
explicitly through the 2nd
Amendment or through
decisions of the Supreme Court. And
as we have seen lately, abuse of these rights can lead to gruesome acts of violence against innocent
victims.
What I have found most interesting is that supporters of gun
rights and abortion have invoked the "slippery slope" argument in
defense of their positions, i.e. that any restriction of gun or abortion rights
will open the door to the eventual loss of the right. As a result, even
the most widely-supported, common
sense proposals face heavy
opposition politically and are dead in the water before the debate even starts.
This isn't helped by the fact that lobbyists severely penalize Democrats and Republicans for even benign infractions against
the party platform.
Abortion
I am pro-life. My stance on the issue is best articulated by this statement from
the LDS Church:
"...Some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion,
such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health
of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious
jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have
severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even
these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion."
I would never personally encourage anyone to get an abortion,
except if the the health of the mother were in jeopardy or if the child is not
expected to survive. In cases of rape or incest, I would be supportive of
whatever an individual decides, since that is a very personal matter.
Experiencing what I have with my own children - watching as the
"plus" sign appears on the pregnancy test, seeing the form of a child take shape on an ultrasound, and witnessing the birth of my son and daughter - I
have a reverence for the miracle of life at all stages of fetal development.
As my wife and I sat with the technician at our 12-week or 20-week
appointments, it wasn't just a clump of cells that we saw on the screen - it
was our child, the same one that now rushes around our house in his Superman
cape and tells me he loves me as he drifts off to sleep, or the little girl
that smiles and waves to me as I walk out the door on my way work.
And so, wherever possible, I would plead with my friends or family
members to consider adoption if they truly don't feel fit to be a parent at
this point in their life.
That said, the fact is that abortions have been ruled as legal, at
least until the fetus is viable. And if abortions are going to be legal,
I believe they should be safe. I oppose attempts to shame competent
abortion doctors out of practice or to so severely restrict abortions that
women are only left with dangerous options. (And it should go without
saying that I oppose violence against abortion proponents.)
While I am pro-life, I at least understand where the pro-choice
crowd is coming from, particularly in cases where the fetus has not yet
developed. I understand the notion that a zygote cannot feel pain and is
not sentient, so I don't have a good legal argument why destroying a fetus in
the early stages of pregnancy should be banned, even though I wouldn't advocate
it myself. I sympathize with women who feel that their reproductive
health should not be decided by bureaucrats and legislators, especially those
of the male variety who they may perceive as patriarchal and misogynistic
(often with good reason). I agree that abortion should be an option at
all stages of pregnancy where the health of the mother is at risk or when the
child is not expected to survive, or when the pregnancy is a result of rape or
incest.
However, in the eyes of the law, once the fetus is viable, the
rights of the woman must be reconciled to the rights of the child. And so I am
among the 60 to 84% of Americans who believe late-term
abortions should be illegal in most circumstances. I don't know if the
number is 20 weeks or 24 weeks or some other threshold, but surely there is a
point where a fetus is just as human inside the womb as it will be out.
While it appears that Planned Parenthood didn't break any laws by
selling fetal tissue, we should ask ourselves whether buying or selling organs
from aborted children should be
legal, even if there's no profit involved. At best, the practice creates
a conflict of interest and at worst it is an act of barbarism.
While there are a number of reasons to defund Planned Parenthood,
I'm not sure it's good politics. Planned Parenthood does provide some
needed services, including contraception, sex education, and other general
health services, particularly for lower income families. Instead, let's
better regulate the activities that such organizations are involved in.
Gun Control
I'm not a gun enthusiast by any means, but most of the people I know who own them have
proper respect for them and have taken appropriate training. For many,
hunting is a long-standing family tradition. And hard as it may be for
city slickers like me to believe, in some areas people still rely on guns for
food. (Free advice - don't kill anything with a name.)
I believe the Constitutional right to bear arms should be upheld,
but I think there are ways to reasonably restrict access to deadly weapons to
prevent accidents and violent crimes.
I agree that keeping guns out of responsible hands doesn't
necessarily decrease the danger from irrational criminals, but more needs to be
done to make sure that guns aren't getting into the wrong hands in the first
place. At the very least, background checks should be required for anyone
seeking to acquire a gun. Also, I don't see anything wrong with requiring
training or licensing, at least for the most dangerous firearms, as long as the
process does not put an undue burden on the gun owner in time or cost.
Controlling access to guns does not equate to taking away the
right to bear arms. While it would be unconstitutional to prevent a
law-abiding citizen from procuring a weapon, the right to bear arms does not
need to be extended to felons or to the mentally ill.
Reasonable restrictions on guns will not necessarily prevent every
violent crime, but that's no reason to declare the cause as futile and not do
what we can to stem the tide of
gun-related deaths in the United States.
Common Sense Solutions
Given the current political environment, any motion to restrict
either guns or abortion seems unlikely. Perhaps the only way to make
progress on either front would be to arrange a compromise on the two issues simultaneously,
pushing through legislation on both gun control and abortion in a single bill.
And why not give that a try? If you are a gun advocate,
would you sacrifice a few extra days to get a permit or have a background check
if it would save viable fetuses from being aborted? And if you are
pro-choice, would you allow restrictions on elective late-term abortions if it
meant fewer lives lost to gun violence?
In the spirit of Henry Clay, maybe we can turn two
controversies into one win-win victory on behalf of Life.
2 comments:
Dang, Jeff... I love your blog! Good stuff here. These are common sense solutions to significant and controversial issues. Unfortunately, as you said, people are so unwilling to even listen or try on the other side's point of view. If we did, we might actually be surprised at how much we actually gave on common.
One issue regarding guns and mental health... As one who works in mental health, this is a very controversial issue because clinicians usually have to make a diagnosis to treat a patient... even if they are mildly depressed or anxious. So, at what point is someone considered "mentally ill" and unfit to own a gun? I have veteran patients with PTSD that are very concerned about this issue.
That is a very good point about PTSD. Ultimately I think it has to be health professionals like yourself who help craft the legislation as well as make the individual determination of whether someone is fit to own a gun. Maybe it's impossible to do so fairly and therefore it will never happen, but I'm not qualified to make that conclusion.
Post a Comment