Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Let's Talk About Abortion

If you haven't noticed, Texas does things a little differently than other states. I referenced this in yesterday's humorous post. On a more serious note, Texas has also made the news recently with a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. This bill was opposed by Texas Democrats, and notably, by a Texas Senator named Wendy Davis, who sparked a #StandWithWendy following on Twitter last night with her filibuster of the bill.

I know that people on both sides are very passionate about abortion, and that many people are very uncomfortable discussing the issue at all. It's not something dusty and dry like economic theory. We're not talking about tariffs and international trade. It's an intensely personal and moral issue that goes to the core of our being.

So, having said all that, I'm going to tee it up for discussion here, and if nothing else, put my thoughts out there on the Texas Bill and a 20 week rule. This is the internet - strong opinions come with the territory.

First of all, this is a tough world and people have to make tough choices at times, but what we are talking about here - an abortion after 20 weeks - is terminating a viable infant. I think there is a certain reasonable ground in which abortions can be performed, but that time is not very long. For instance, one of the big questions that are put to pro-life folks is What about the case of a woman who becomes pregnant through rape? Let's talk about that:

First, I'm fine with exceptions. I don't fall into either camp of: (a) abortions for all women, all the time, right up until the baby is born or (b) no abortions, ever. This issue isn't one that lends itself to either one of those solutions. So let's talk about a common exception that gets brought up: rape.

In the case of a woman who become pregnant through rape, I don't think that she is going to wait twenty weeks to make a decision about whether or not she wants an abortion. Why on earth would she wait that long? My guess is that she would make the decision as soon as she realized that she was pregnant, not four months later. No fact is going to change between week 4 and week 20. Basically, I think it's such an odd hypothetical as to not really merit much consideration. It's just a little too hypothetical and out of touch with reality for me. If you're raped, and get pregnant: have an abortion before week 20. Why?

For me, when I think of a 20 week old, I naturally think of what my child was like at 20 weeks. He had developed a head, lungs, all of his limbs, he had developed his sex, and distinct chambers of his heart. He was moving around. That's what you have at 20 weeks. It's not theoretical - it's a child. At 20 weeks, he was my child.

To me, the best evidence of how awful late-term abortion is the fog of language that we use to describe it. It's almost entirely euphemisms that minimize the act. To specifically and accurately describe what actually happens in a late term abortion is to condemn it.

Women have rights to control their body. But again, you can't take everything to the extreme. For instance, my rights end when I punch you in the face. I can't do that. With abortion, it's the same principle. People who advocate for late-term abortion are advocating destroying a viable human being. If your response to that is that you value the rights of a mother more than the rights of a late-term infant, my guess is that you're not a parent.

Anyway, I'm probably going to make some people mad with this post, but that's not my intention. I'm just putting my thoughts out there to get people thinking. By the way, random fact: the hard-right country of France has a 12 week window for abortions. So Texas is proposing to give women an addition 8 weeks longer than France does.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Public Transportation is not a "Right"

In the ongoing saga of the CMRTA, Richland County Council agreed to toss more taxpayer money into the abyss. It's just $775,000 of your money, so no worries, right? The funny sad part is that this amount still won't cover the bus system's operating deficit for very long.

Apparently, a group of constitutional law scholars showed up to be heard at the council's meting.
A contingent of 10 passengers and advocates attended the meeting, encouraging County Council to reach an agreement with the city to cover the funding gap. They said public transportation is a basic service, like police protection, water and sewer.
“We demand our share,” rider Mamie Jackson said. “We should not have to come and beg for a basic right.
Wait, what? When did having a bus system become a "basic right"?

Ok boys and girls, just to recap: "rights" are given to you from your creator. A government neither gives rights, nor can it take them away. The government provides services, benefits, and privileges. That's it. It's really not that complicated.

Public transportation is a simple service that has costs and benefits. It costs money to operate public transportation. The problem we have is that the bus system isn't self sufficient. The money earned from those paying the bus fare isn't covering the cost of operating the system. That's the basic problem. The question that our County Council needs to answer is how much annual support does the bus system need, and is it worth it to pay that much money?

It's cost/benefit analysis.It's not a right, it's simply a service that we need to decide whether to provide or not.

It's really depressing that we have citizens who believe that public transportation is a "basic right", but that's where our culture has gone. There are simply people out there who believe that they are entitled to things like this, and to have others pay for it.

Read dmore dhere: http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/08/2144657/richland-pays-the-fare-for-bus.html#storylink=cpy