Should abortion be legal?

A popular topic in politics, is and has been for the last so many years, is abortion. I hope to cover why abortion should be legal in the United States. I'll be going over a few, hopefully the most prominent, anti-abortion, and how abortion is good for the country as a whole. Hopefully I'll be able to convince some people to, at the very least, re-think their stance on a very controversial issue that is at the forefront of maybe debates, and a subject which may be the very most divisive subjects in modern america. I would first like to state I am not a big fan of the terms pro-choice and pro-life. These terms seem very much like campaign slogan, false dichotomy jargon. Hardly anyone is anti-choice or anti-life, they both seem designed to make the opposing side look bad.

First I would like to address some of the most prominent anti-abortion arguments, starting with that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a person and subsequently has rights. To counter this argument, I would like to introduce a thought experiment which I heard some time ago, but I am not sure of its origin. I am stating this to ensure that no one is mistaken that this is my thought experiment, but I cannot credit the correct author because it has traveled primarily by word of mouth. Without further ado the thought experiment. Imagine you are a firefighter in a burning building, and there are two people in the building. You only have time to save one of them before the building collapses and you cannot carry them both, which would you choose? Any person should hesitate in choosing between two equivalents, two people. Now say you are in a burning building and there is a canister containing one fertilized egg, or a fetus, and a boy. Who would you save this time? I'm assuming you'd save the boy. This is to illustrate that a fetus is not, in fact, the equivalent of a person. Now say there is a 10 canisters, each containing a fetus/fertilized egg, and again, a boy or girl of whatever age. This time you can choose to save the 10 canisters or the boy/girl. Again I would argue you choose to save the boy/girl. What I hope to illustrate here is that a fertilized egg is not even the equivalent of 1/10th a person. Therefore, a fetus/fertilized egg is not a person, and does not have the same rights.

Say you aren't convinced, and for whatever reason you would choose to save the canisters with fertilized eggs, or you say "sure the fetuses aren't people, but that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them". This next thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Thompson is meant to counter those views. This thought experiment is a little weird, but I find it completely analogous to the situation at hand, and it makes a valid point, so bear with me. Say you want to go to an orchestra, but you read in the newspaper there is a group of violin enthusiasts, who are planning to kidnap someone going to the orchestra and attaching them to their leader, a great violinist who's kidneys are failing. You decide to go to the orchestra anyway, because you really want to see it. You are kidnapped, and you wake up, attached to the dying violinist, who is using your kidneys survive. Now, do you legally have the right to detach the violinist, thus killing him? I would argue yes, he is using your body without your permission. I know this thought experiment is quite odd, but I will go over how it is analogous and makes a valid point. Reading in the newspaper about the violinists plan is analogous of your knowledge that having sex may cause pregnancy.  Going to the orchestra is equivalent to having sex anyway. Being kidnapped and attached is the equivalent of becoming pregnant. Finally having the violinist removed is the equivalent of having an abortion. What this thought experiment illustrates is that, Even if you consider a fetus a person, It does not have the right to use your body without your permission. 

Now I want to cover some statistics regarding abortion, more specifically fetal consciousness. According to a study by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

"

The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed

Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious

The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit

"

From this study, It is safe to assume that a fetus cannot feel pain, nor is conscious before 24 weeks of development, or prior to about 6 months of pregnancy. In a study by Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization, They found 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of development or more. In conjunction with the Royal College study, 99% or more of all abortions in the U.S. are performed while the fetus is unconscious and cannot feel pain. If you've ever watched Fox news, you probably know they are notorious for pushing republican ideals like de-legalizing abortion. Accord to Fox News' website,

"100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. "

So according to Fox News, .01% of abortions are performed after the baby becomes conscious and can feel pain.

In this essay I am not trying to claim that abortion is some great thing. I am just stating that sometimes it is a viable option, and whether it is a viable option should be decided by the woman who is pregnant, not the government. Issues such as these should not be decided on emotion alone, but with facts and extended thought on the subject. 

Works Cited

Abortion, Pro's/Con's. "Abortion ProCon.org." Abortion ProCon.org. 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://abortion.procon.org/>.

Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 17 June 2003. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html>.

Operation, Recuse. "Operation Rescue." Abortions In America :. Operation Rescue, 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/>.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "RCOG Release: RCOG Updates Its Guidance." Welcome to the RCOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 25 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance>.

Is the Republican Party anti-intellectual on social issues?

With the 2012 presidential election quickly approaching, it is, more and more, beginning to feel like choosing between the lesser of two evils. Both parties are funded and equally so influenced by interest groups. With presidential and other political candidates relying more and more on funding from interest groups, they are becoming more and more desperate to please them, and when a politician has to choose between creating a policy that will help their re-election, or choosing a policy that will please the people. Pleasing the people and helping yourself become re-elected may at first sound similar, What at this point, it really comes down to is, will my policy in favor of the people get them to the polls, or am I better off with campaign funding to sway already active participants in the political process? This is one of many problems with our current political system, but it may not be the most prominent. Considering the upcoming election, we all know both parties have their problems. Sure the democrats have their problematic politicians but, to me at least, the republican party is currently much more problematic.

The republican party has become filled with ideological (more often than not religious also) lunatics. Sure each party has had it's questionable candidates and officers in the past, but recently it seems the republicans have opened the floodgates on idiocy. Just recently, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Christine O'Donnell have emerged into the republican spotlight. Each with gaping flaws in their campaign (which I will go through) which has made me question their status as individuals ready to represent a diverse population.

In the 2008 Presidential elections, Sarah Palin was named the vice presidential running mate to John McCain. We've all seen politicians have simple verbal slip-ups, which I will avoid and focus on her real policy making opinion problems. Firstly, Sarah Palin, apparently sees genetic research as a waste of money. Of course she didn't just say that, but she did it in a more round-about, self-contradictory way. In 2008, in one of her first policy speeches, she pushed individuals and lawmakers to support the IDEA, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In endorsing the IDEA, she specifically mentioned how she hoped to help children with autism.

"For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference."

Now she gave a good reason to endorse IDEA, but the problem became obvious when she mentioned how she'd hoped to fund it. She hoped to transfer funds away from what seemed like, ridiculous earmarks such as fruit fly research.

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? [...] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

Of course Palin was oblivious to the fact that fruit fly research has led to great progress in the field of genetics, such as increasing our understanding of cancer, depression, and apparently not known to Sarah Palin, Autism.

"Now scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for these nerve cell connections to form and function correctly. The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism."

So here's Sarah Palin endorsing the IDEA, to help children with autism, stating that early identification of such a disease can make a life changing difference, while simultaneously hoping to cut funds on said autism research.

Moving onto Rick Perry, a more recent republican face. He recently released a campaign ad which caused him to receive a lot of flack, and deservedly so.

The sad part about this ad is that I can't tell if Rick Perry is just shamelessly trying to appeal to conservative Christians or is seriously uninformed. In the campaign ad, Rick Perry says

".....there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. "

Firstly, he doesn't provide any reason homosexuals should not be able to serve openly in the military, whereas any straight male or female has the liberty to be fully open about their sexual orientation. Then he claims children cannot pray in school, which is simply false, only that an authority figure in the school may not endorse a certain religion by leading prayer. Then he stirs up the classic imagined war on religion in America. Christians are being so discriminated against in America, their churches are tax-exempt. According to Jon Stewart

"Government hates religious organizations so much that it lets them keep $100 billion a year in offerings tax-free" 

Later in the same episode, he perfectly sums up the misconception of a government war on religion.

“You’ve confused a ‘war on your religion’ with not always getting everything you want."

Moving onto Rick Santorum. Just this previous weekend, the 18th-19th, Rick Santorum said at a speaking event that liberals were anti-science for refusing to use the earth's resources to the full extent of our technology, or essentially not drilling for oil in the United States. It's disturbingly ironic that Rick Santorum can call anyone "anti-science". Rick Santorum, the same Rick Santorum who pushed for Intelligent Design (which has been ruled in Hattiesburg, PA as “ a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”) to be taught alongside evolution.

In an interview with the associated press, Rick Santorum said this when asked by the associated press "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?"

".......if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution........ That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. "

Rick Santorum, arguably the current front-runner for the republican nomination has been found guilty of using fallacious slippery slope arguments in the past on gay marriage (At A New Hampshire Speaking Event Santorum said “So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?”) but here he goes so far as to use the slippery slope on the right to privacy saying it grants you the right to whatever you want. This is obviously false, the right to privacy would never allow things such as multiple homicides. It is obvious to anyone this is Rick Santorum's attempt to place his religion into public law.

So is the republican party becoming increasingly anti-intellectual? It would appear so with the recent amount of candidates emerging with enormous popularity such as Santorum, Perry, and Palin, as well as others that I did not cover like Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell. Although I do not know enough about economic or foreign policy to commentate on their stances in such areas, it seems obvious that republicans on social issues are unable to clear their emotions from the subjects and think logically, or just wish for their religion to become immersed in public policy.

Works Cited

Associated, Press. "Santorum Interview with AP." USA Today. Gannett, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm>.


Boyle, Alan. "Judge Rules against ‘intelligent Design’." MSNBC.com. MSNBC/Associated Press, 20 Dec. 2005. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.T0MWZfEgf_M>.


Brance, Glenn. "Farewell to the Santorum Amendment? | NCSE." NCSE. National Center for Science Education, 5 Jan. 2002. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://ncse.com/rncse/22/1-2/farewell-to-santorum-amendment>.


Cass, Connie, and Jennifer Agiesta. "Rick Santorum Contraception Stance Remains Out Of Step With Nation." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-social-issues_n_1284176.html>.


Edwards, David. "Santorum: Liberals ‘are the Anti-science Ones’ | The Raw Story." The Raw Story. 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/santorum-liberals-are-the-anti-science-ones/>.


Mitchum, Robert. "Fruit Flies' Genetic Wealth Has Scientists Abuzz." PhysOrg.com. 08 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.physorg.com/news155751263.html>.


Science, Daily. "Specific Brain Protein Required For Nerve Cell Connections To Form And Function." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 05 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905123832.htm>.


Walshe, Shushannah. "Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event." ABC News. ABC News Network, 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rick-santorum-gets-booed-after-heated-back-and-forth-on-same-sex-marriage-at-new-hampshire-college-event/>.


Wing, Nick. "Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html>.

Is Newt Gingrich The Tea Party Candidate?

Newt Gingrich won 45% of the vote in the Florida primary from voters who identify themselves as strong supporters of the tea party, Whereas Mitt Romney received only 33% and Rick Santorum received only 17%.  Herman Cain and notable tea party politician Sarah Palin have recently endorsed Newt Gingrich in his run for the presidency.  Gingrich also has the support of 300 tea party groups, including 47 in Florida. It is still unclear whether or not Newt is the definitive tea party candidate.  The tea party is too undefinable, subjective on issues, to declare one person as the definitive representative in the presidential race.  The embrace of Gingrich as the tea party candidate could be described as lackluster.  If Gingrich wants his campaign for the presidency to continue into August as he has declared it will, he will need to rally his tea party supporters in the upcoming southern state primaries.  It’s going to be difficult for Gingrich to gain momentum on the grounds that only a few states will be holding primaries in the next few upcoming weeks. Nevertheless if the Gingrich campaign can survive until “Super Tuesday” (March 6^th, 2012, A day when a large number of states are holding their primary elections) he could swing the momentum against current frontrunner Mitt Romney.  When asked if he represented the tea party, Gingrich ignored the question.  Contrarily, Gingrich's campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond didn't miss a beat when asked the same question by the Huffington post. “Damn straight we are, I don't think there's any question.” Said Hammond,  "If the Tea Party started with fiscal issues and keeping government spending down, Gingrich is the parent of the balanced budget. But beyond that, the Tea Party looks for candidates who are willing to challenge the status quo in Washington. Nobody challenges the status quo more than Newt." Hammond then noted that Newt has not received overwhelming tea party support  "It's something that Tea Party organizations need to come forward organically and do," Implying that the tea party does support Newt, but they aren't all so enthusiastic as to make their way to the polls and rallies.   An officer of a tea party group in South Carolina who also voted for Gingrich said that no one is really wildly enthusiastic about any of the candidates, and that the tea party's real influence will be seen in the general election in November.  His statement proved true at the Florida primary, where 39 percent of republican voters said they were not satisfied with their choice of candidates.  Allen Olson, the former chairman of South Carolina's Columbia Tea Party chapter was asked if Gingrich was the tea party candidate. He answered “Yes, but since he's the only one who threw his hat in the ring, people are starting to see him as a Tea Party candidate."  Ryan Hecker, who works for a national group called Freedom Works said “If Newt was actually coalescing most Tea Party support, he would have the nomination wrapped up, any strong Tea Party candidate would destroy Romney. Unfortunately, all such candidates chose not to run." Ryan Rhodes, an activist in Iowa, has expressed his belief that no candidate running is ideal.  Many republican voters would prefer that other popular tea party politicians such as Chris Christie or Jim DeMint would have joined the race.  Bob Mcguffe, who helps run a group in Connecticut known as Right Principles, is pragmatic about the situation, and his group have endorsed Gingrich as the nominee. Although Most republican's, especially tea party members, see any of the current republican candidates as superior to Obama, Macguffe notes Gingrich has his flaws  “Gingrich has betrayed his "conservative rhetoric" for "political purposes, his well-known lack of self-discipline, sometimes overbearing personality and personal baggage" as things that will be "pounced upon" by President Barack Obama in a general election.”  Jenny Beth Martin, A co-founder of the nation group Tea Party Patriots, said Newt's victory in the South Carolina primary was a victory for the tea party in general. 

Article Summarized: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/newt-gingrich-tea-party_n_1244564.html