The Case for Life

There are many different social issues being debated by our society today, one of the most controversial being the issue of abortion.  There are many people who are passionately involved with this issue, both those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.  I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, and thus is wrong.  For this reason, I believe that our Federal government should make abortion illegal.

Before I explain why I believe abortion should be made illegal, I want you to understand why I believe it is wrong.  The disagreements between pro-life and pro-choice advocates can be boiled down to just one question, is an unborn child alive? If a pro-choice advocate believed that an unborn child is alive, then they wouldn’t agree with abortion.  I believe that an unborn child is fully human, fully a person, and fully alive from the moment of conception.  Dr. Maureen Condic, an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, says that embryos are living human beings "precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells."  She goes on to say that “Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.” (1)  Clearly, from a scientific point of view, an unborn human is alive right from the moment of conception, so abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy (2), kills a human being.  This is why I believe abortion is wrong.    

Now that I have established why abortion is wrong it is easy to understand that I believe it should be illegal because it takes a human life.  The Federal government does not make things like drunk driving legal, which sometimes kill a human, so how can it make abortion legal which always kills a human?  Similarly, I believe the Federal government needs to be the one who makes abortion illegal, not the individual states.  Individual states were not allowed to determine whether or not slavery should be legal within their borders because slavery is always wrong, no matter the circumstance.  Abortion is just as wrong in Texas as it is in New York and every other state, so it makes sense to that the Federal government should be the one to make it illegal.  

One issue that pro-choice advocates bring up when pro-lifers say that abortion should be illegal is, what should happen to the mother?  Should she be treated as a murderer and sent to prison?  I don’t believe a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated as a criminal.  Many women who are considering an abortion feel it is their only choice and can’t see the other options that are available.  They do not have an abortion because they want to kill their baby, they have an abortion to fix what they consider a problem that has no other solution.  For this reason, I believe that instead of being treated with hate, a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated with compassion and love.  Sending her to prison will not fix anything.  I think a woman who has an illegal abortion should be given counseling and help with whatever made her decide an abortion was her only option.  After all, just as the mother is not more important then the unborn baby, the unborn baby is not more important then the mother and so the mother should not be forgotten. 

The issue of abortion has been debated for many years, and no doubt will continue to be debated for many more.  But I believe that eventually, because of the scientific evidence, abortion will be seen for what it really is, the taking of a human life and our Federal government will take action to make it illegal.  

(1) http://www.caseforlife.com/evidence.asp

(2) New Oxford American Dictionary

Good Points Do Not Always Mean Good Arguments

In an article written by Ann Coulter entitled “Get Rid of Government -- But First Make Me President!” published on June 15, 2011 on anncoulter.com, Coulter talks about all the reasons she can’t stand libertarians.  While she makes some good points about flaws in the thinking of libertarians, Coulter attacks libertarians too aggressively to 

effectively convince anyone who doesn’t already share her opinions to agree with her.  

Coulter’s choice of words in this article alienates any readers who don’t already agree with her.  By using words like “babbling” (paragraph 2) to describe libertarians she makes libertarians sound like idiots thus making everyone who even slightly agrees with them become defensive.  This tactic of aggressively attacking libertarians is somewhat effective for the conservative readers who frequent her blog, but if anyone comes in search of an opinion different from their own they will have to look past the attacks to see Coulter’s points.  

One of the main statements Coulter attacks is a suggestion made by Rep. Ron Paul on June 13, 2011.  Ron Paul, in response to his opinion of gay marriage, suggests that marriage should not be something the government needs to be involved with, saying that it should go to the church and individuals (paragraph 7).  Coulter’s says this is a very impractical idea because of all the legal issues and government programs that rely on the  legal contract of marriage.  She asks, “If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined? ... Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?” (paragraphs 8-9)  By pointing out all of these issues Coulter shows that it would be impossible to take away the government’s registration of marriage because of all the marriage related programs and legal issues we’ve created for the government to oversee.  

While Coulter’s assessment of Ron Paul’s argument has many valid points, she does nothing to convince people who don’t share her beliefs to agree with her.  No one who agrees with Ron Paul in anyway will be very willing to listen to her argument against him when they read Coulter comparing him to a vegetarian who still eats meat (paragraph 11).  Coulter also doesn’t do herself any favors by saying all liberals and libertarians “appeal to irrational mobs to attain power” while conservatives never do (paragraph 23).  In both groups there are people who do that, and it is unfair to both groups to make that statement. 

Coulter makes many good points in this article and calls out some faulty thinking of libertarians and Ron Paul.  Her opinions are well thought out and backed up by reliable evidence, but her manner of presenting it is completely off.  If Coulter had communicated her views in a way that sought to convince her reads more then to attack those she disagrees with, then this would have been a much more effective article

Is It Time To Change How We Vote?

Many people are frustrated with how our country is being run today, blaming the government for every problem they see.  But this is not entirely the government’s fault.  We the people elect our representatives which makes us at least partially responsible for how the government is run.  Our inability to elect good officials, however, is not entirely our fault.  Some people believe that the manner in which we elect out officials is a major part of the problem.  In this editorial written on September 1, 2011 for the opinion section of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), John B. Anderson argues that we need to reform our voting system to allow more proportional representation and to allow third party or independent candidates a greater chance of being elected.  

In his editorial, Anderson claims that because of our current voting system Americans are not able to elect a president they truly agree with and are not being fairly represented in Congress.  The Democrat and Republican parties have been getting stronger in recent decades, making it so voters are forced to vote for a candidate from one of those two parties, even if then don’t truly agree with either candidate.  The dominance of the these two parties, Anderson argues, makes it virtually impossible for a third party or independent candidate to win a presidential election.  When voters who support a third party or independent candidate see that candidate’s support starting to slip Anderson says they often decide to settle for “the lesser of two evils” instead of continuing to back their top choice.  This happens when voters fear their top choice has no chance of being elected but they still want to have a say in who gets elected.  Anderson preposes we need to make changes to our voting system to allow third party and independent candidates a real chance of being elected.    

Another problem Anderson sees is how we elect our representatives.  He argues that Congress is not responsive to all Americans, it is only responsive to hard-line partisans.  Anderson proposes that we need to adopt a proportional representation system.  This means, says Anderson, that in states like Massachusetts, where Democrats regularly win all the house seats but a full third of the population votes Republican, three of the ten seats would be Republican, thus allowing the minority a voice.

Anderson’s proposals will be most appealing to people who are frustrated with the current state of our government and those who don’t agree entirely agree with either party.  Many people see politicians as only caring about being reelected and not listening to the people they serve.  But a third party or independent candidate offers hope that a politician might actually care about what the people think.  Though this may not turn out to be true, it offers hope and since many people have lost faith in the people that run our country, a third party or independent candidate is be very appealing.  

The argument in this editorial is very compelling.  Anderson has written it so that he favors neither Democrats nor Republicans, talking about each party equally.  This way Anderson hasn’t limited is his audience to a particular party or a certain set of beliefs.  The tone is non-volatile which makes people more receptive to his argument.  Anderson also does a good job of showing that his ideas actually have the potential to work.  He shows that several different independent candidates for president have gained significant voter support, and some have even been a real threat.  He also tells us that in recent years third party and independent candidates have won state elections and been elected to Congress.  This shows readers that people really do want those candidates in office and that those candidates have a chance of being elected.  

Anderson has served in Congress, run as an independent candidate for president - receiving seven percent of the popular vote, and served as board chair for FairVote.  This shows readers that he really does know what he’s talking about and isn’t just some news paper contributer giving their two cents worth.  These changes to our voting system that Anderson proposes are not just based on his own musing however.  Anderson also gives examples of his proposal for how to elect representatives actually working in Illinois.  Even though he cannot give us an example of his proposal for how we elect our president working, readers are inclined to believe that it will work as well because his other proposal has been proven to work.  

This editorial is very well thought out and makes a very convincing argument.  Because his writing style uses hardly any inflammatory words Anderson has made a wide range of people receptive to his argument.  He is also considered a trustworthy source because he has had first hand experience with these issues.  Another point that helps Anderson’s argument is the fact that it is published in the CSM, which is considered one of the most unbiased papers in the US.  Many people come to the CSM looking for an unbiased view of things, and Anderson’s editorial provides them with his view on how to fix our voting system without revealing his political views on any other subject.  Anderson has done a wonderful job writing and editorial that will convince his readers to consider his opinion on how we elect those running our country. 

The Federal Government's Problem of Interpreting the Constitution

Our Federal Government is often accused of using certain sections of the Constitution (such as the Elastic Clause) to justify the bills they pass.  This issue has become even more pronounced since the institution of a new rule in the House which requires all bills to carry a “Constitutional Authority Statement.”  Though implemented to help show that the new GOP majority in the House respects the restrictions placed on the Federal Government in the Constitution, this rule has only made more prominent the use of the Constitution to pass any law Congress wants.  

This article on Washingtonpost.com gives examples of this problem pointing out instances such as when the House used article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as justification for passing a bill that prohibits pointing lasers at aircrafts.  The article also shows, however, that this rule has been put to good use as well.  A bill to repeal the health care law cited articles 1, 2, 3, and 6, the 10th amendment and quoted James Madison.  This shows that the new rule is not useless.  

Though this new rule hasn’t made huge improvements in regards to the problem of the Federal Government using the Constitution to justify passing whatever laws they want, it does require representatives to constantly check themselves against the Constitution.  This article does a wonderful job of showing that.  It also shows that even though the House is still using the Constitution to their advantage, this rule has helped to pronounce that problem and thus it will be easier to eliminate the problem in the future.