Brownbeck, Pharmacies, Abortion, & Smoking: Hmmm....

Ok, this is a discussion I have had with someone on the Liberty Papers blog. Hopefully, by putting my response here, I can write out exactly what I am arguing without the constraints of the comments section.

(So the debate regards Sen. Brownbeck's position that abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape or where the woman's life is in danger. Then it morphed into a discussion of pharmacists not filling prescriptions for the morning after pill and Muslim cashiers who won't handle pork products.)

Ok, I am going to try and tie the pharmacy back into the main debate, hopefully while keeping myself consistent and understandable. While some people may have a problem with the Christian pharmacist or the Muslim cashier, I don't. And about my smoking comment, I don't agree with government bans because it should be up to individual owners and patrons, just as the morning after pill or multiple generic drugs should be left up to individual pharmacies and patrons. I brought that example up to show how often people will criticize the pharmacist but then want to ban smoking in the name of protecting the workers who don't choose another job. That is hypocrisy. And to be clear, if a pharmacy opens up and the person running the place says the business will not fill morning after pills, I see no difference from the bar owner who says the bar will allow or disallow smoking. As well, if a pharmacy opens up and says the place will fill morning after pills, no one is forcing a pharmacist to work in that place. Should the pharmacy owner choose to allow some pharmacists to abstain from filling the prescription on religious reasons, just as some store owners allow Muslims to abstain from touching pork on religious reasons, that should be allowed as well.

Now, how does this tie in with Brownbeck? Well, Brownbeck is thinking about the child and has put out a position that is extreme. However, no one is forced to accept his position. They are however, forced to accept the opposite extreme. And whenever a compromise between the two extremes is reached, representing what "most" people want, I hear far more of the feminist extreme complaining rather than the Brownbeck extreme. And this is where my opinion comes in. I lean more toward the Brownbeck extreme over the other because Brownbeck is trying to protect an innocent life. Do I agree with his belief? No, actually I don't. But I lean his way because his side is arguing from a position I can respect (though it may not be correct). I don't see an abortion as "the choice;" rather I see conception as the time to make a choice. And, that is it really where it ties in with the other debate. No one forces these women to get pregnant. While I may still not want to believe the percentage of women that are involved in this situation, I have to respect it. But, I also have to argue that women should know this information and I do not absolve them simply because they didn't know the risk factors. If someone decides to get in a crappy plane and jump out using a parachute from a guy who looks like he hasn't showered in 2 months, I don't have any respect for that person if he or she dies in that situation.

Now, I would like to point out one thing, something that has been missed. Brownbeck (and most debaters) are assuming that a child growing in the Fallopian tube (for example) will actually be able to be born. But, that may be an inaccurate assumption which would actually change the debate. If a child would not be able to survive outside the woman's body, but is at the point where a woman would die, then the term "abortion" as we know it, may not be correct. For in that case, the child would have no possibility for life because the woman would die before the child could gain the ability to survive independently, a Catch-22. Now, this does open a can of worms. However, I think some slippery slope styled arguments are not logical following questions, using the same debate points. For example, two questions that I hear often are "what if the child is still born" or "what if they have a large DNA deformity," often trying to tie those issues into a debate about the child not being able to be carried to term. In answer, I don't know if any doctor can tell at 4 months or 8 months or 6 weeks if a child will be stillborn. Thus the possibility still exists the child could survive. If I am wrong, then please let me know. Regarding deformities, it depends on what it is. If the child is missing legs, but could still survive after birth, then that is a completely different debate. However, if the child is missing a head, then I would imagine the child would be considered no longer living. And I should point out, Brownbeck is arguing in favor of the child's life; if the child is no longer living, it would not be an abortion and Brownbeck would not be against it I don't believe.

Now to be clear I said this. I am what would be called pro-life. However, I believe that is inaccurate for it follows from the label pro-choice. Pro-choice is a focal point lie, a blatant attempt to mis-characterize an issue. I am truly pro-choice, being totally honest. I believe every woman (and actually, every man) should have the right to choose whether to have a child or not. I simply want them to make the choice at conception rather than afterwards. Now, this does get into the case of rape so I will end this post with this example I came up with while listening to a pro-life speaker (and for the life of me, I could not find his name). They say that the child of a rape is a constant reminder of that brutal act, which is true. But does that mean the child doesn't deserve to live? For those of us who believe that an unborn child is still a child (as the speaker argued using the "SLED" criteria), here is a similar situation. See if you would "abort" the child here.

One day, an elderly woman is enjoying a wonderful afternoon with her granddaughter, a child of 8 and the child of the woman's beloved only daughter. Suddenly, there is a knock on the door. When the dear sweet elderly woman and her beautiful granddaughter go to answer the door, together, bonding in their special way, a policeman is there, bearing the worst news of all. The woman's only child, her beloved daughter and the mother of the young girl, has been tragically killed in a car accident along with her husband. The young girl's parents are both gone. Now, here I will leave my story, of the grandmother and granddaughter stricken with grief, knowing that no more will they see the tragically killed woman and her husband. Since now every time the grandmother looks at her little granddaughter, who she took custody of after the accident, she is reminded of that tragic day and the pain and suffering that memory invokes. So my question is, should the grandmother "abort" her granddaughter? I mean, every time she looks at the child she is reminded of that tragedy. Should the little girl be aborted in an effort to spare the old woman more pain? And if you say no, why then should the child of a rape be aborted? Perhaps the child will be a joy to his or her family as the little girl was to her grandmother. Then again, to be truly honest, why should an abortion be the first instinct rather than giving the child up for adoption? Focusing on the pregnant woman and her physical discomfort does not absolve the fact that an abortion takes away the unborn child's life and chance to better society.

Hopefully this answers more questions than it raises (since I know there are always more questions to ask, more points to debate). And that is why, I can always post a follow-up.