Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin and Abortion

I’ve been watching the presidential debates, the interactions, the dialogues, and the conventions. I’m particularly interested in Sarah Palin and how she is being savaged by the media elite. People like Gloria Steinem as a feminist who says the only similarity between Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin is a chromosome. The media is particular savage about the view that Sarah Palin evidently has with respect to abortion. They think this is back woodsy, that this folksy, that this is the kind of thing held by a moose hunter, someone who is not educated. I think exactly the opposite is true.

One of the issues that have been brought up over and over again in regards to abortion is, “Should abortion be permitted in the case of rape or incest?” Well I think this is often used as an emotional appeal that is designed to deflect serious consideration of the pro-life position. How can anyone deny a hurting women safe medical care and freedom from the terror of rape or incest by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy resulting from the cruel and criminal invasion of her body?

The emotion of the argument often precludes serious examination of its merits. So you have media elites who get emotional over this and certainly this is an emotional issue but you have to think about these things rationally and clearly, not just on the basis of your emotion. I think that this is precisely what Sarah Palin is doing.

First, it is important to note that the incidents of pregnancy as a result of rape are rare with studies estimating that approximately one percent to four point seven percent result in pregnancy. So lobbying for abortion on the basis of rape or incest is like lobbying for the removal of red lights because you might have to run one in order to rescue someone who is about to commit suicide. Even if we had legislation restricting abortions for all reasons other rape or incest we would save the vast majority of the some two million pre-born babies who die annually in the United States through abortion.

Furthermore, one does not to obviate the real pain of rape or incest by compounding it with the murder of an innocent pre-born child. As Sarah Palin well knows and clearly articulates two wrongs don’t make a right. The very thing that makes rape evil also makes abortion evil. In both cases an innocent human being is brutally dehumanized.

Finally, let me make the point that Sarah Palin would make and she is an articulate spokesperson for life. The real question should be, “Is abortion the murder of an innocent human being?” That’s the question we should be asking. It is Gloria Steinem who is still living in the backwaters of 19th century science, not Sarah Palin. If in fact abortion is the murder of an innocent human being abortion should be avoided at all costs. In an age of scientific enlightenment we now know that the embryo even at its earliest stages fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life. It has metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction. We know then that a zygote is a living human being and not only does it have these features as it were but it is demonstrated to be distinct by a distinct genetic code. We also know that human personhood does not depend on size, location or level of dependence. For those scientific reasons, abortion should be avoided even in cases of rape or incest.

So it turns out the media elite living in cultural Mecca’s are not quite as sophisticated as Sarah Palin who lives in Alaska. Maybe Sarah Palin has had more time to interact with the scientific literature. Therefore, she is not relying on emotion and rhetoric but on reason and empirical science. Now I know there are a lot of guys out there who want to marginalize Sarah Palin because she’s a women but Gloria Steinem has no excuse. She should just get out her science book and spend an hour reading instead of blowviating all over the news print. It’s disgusting quite frankly and I think it’s about time that we spoke out against people who are no longer committed to reason and evidential substance.

5 comments:

Allen said...

Is this really Hank? Incomplete sentences, misspellings, and improper grammar galore, and even the tone of the writing is different. What happened?

Carmen said...

Actually, these looks like transcripts from his radio show. Naturallty, I suspect Hank is not the one doing it but a CRI staff member, which is understandable. All they need to do is be a bit more stringent with the editing.

Anonymous said...

Who cares?

Scott Hescht said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Thanks for this.