I am so sick of this debate!

You know what? Screw it. I say we overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide if they want to outlaw abortion.

Of course, the mother has the right to self-defense in every state. So that means that if there is a risk to her, she has the right to defend herself against an attacker. Now, one can probably say that the basic, healthy pregnancy does not involve risk to the mother; of course, healthy can become unhealthy very quickly, but I digress. Let's just look at the factors that can increase the risk to the mother, and say that if she had such a factor, she would have the right to abort, because she COULD be in danger, even if she wasn't already. After all, I can shoot someone coming at me with a gun, even if they haven't already shot at me, if I am threatened by them.

So that means that any increased risk would be a reason for the woman to feel threatened. Increased risks like having ever had cancer or an abnormal PAP, having diabetes or a family history of it, pulmonary, thyroid, heart, or kidney disease; sickle cell anemia, a blood clotting disorder, epilepsy... Or women who have had more than 3 live births, or women who need to take category C, D, or X drugs, or women who have a previous infant who weighed more than 10 pounds, or women with any kind of uterine or cervical abnormality...

Since once could EASILY say a C-section or very long labor poses a risk to the mother, anything that might cause a large baby, difficulty giving birth, or fetal distress would be a threat to the mother. Plus there's smoking and drug use, which can complicate pregnancies for the mother as well as the fetus. In fact, anyone who drinks in early pregnancy is at risk for the fetus having fetal distress, which means that they could wind up having to have a C-section, which means they are at risk. Plus anyone under 20 and over 35 is high-risk, and anyone who has a BMI less than 18.5 or greater than 30, they're high-risk, too. All of those women are at risk for serious complications and would be defending themselves by preventing a birth.

So yes, let the states ban abortion. They are perfectly free to ban it for very healthy women between age 20 and 35, with a BMI between 18.6 and 29.9, a normal uterus and cervix, no family history of diabetes or childbirth complications, less than 4 births (all of which infants were less than 10 pounds, delivered vaginally without serious tearing, none of which were past 42 weeks and none of which involved preeclampsia or post partum depression), have not had any trauma to the pelvis or abdomen in the pregnancy, have not been exposed to and agree to avoid dangerous chemicals, and who agree to abstain from drugs or alcohol. Meanwhile you can't actually restrict any of their other rights, as long as what they're doing is legal for adults their age, because that would be discrimination considering that there is no way to remove the fetus without killing it.

Good luck with that. I'm sure the five women who have had absolutely no risk to themselves in their pregnancy will be very sad to learn that they will now have to go drink a few beers if they want an abortion.

Part 1 of a Politics Series

I'm gonna be doing a little series on how I feel about politics now, and then another one in a year or so when it actually matters...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Since I usually identify myself as a libertarian, everyone's been saying I should vote for Ron Paul. It's unlikely. My biggest concerns with him are:

1. Against gay marriage and adoption, and in favor of "don't ask, don't tell. Admittedly with a Democratic Congress he wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage. But he could block legislation that could secure rights for homosexuals, even if it doesn't involve federal money. He wouldn't try to ban gay marriage at a federal level, but at the same time he wouldn't allow laws that would prevent states from invading people's private lives. I know it won't happen for a long time, but we really need a constitutional amendment saying that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, same as we needed one that said they couldn't do it on the basis of race (There's not enough discrimination against women any more to warrant making that an amendment).

2. No federal money for schools. The one way in which I am really, truly not libertarian is that I think that we need to provide for children and the mentally handicapped or ill. But again, it's unlikely he would be able as president to decimate the federal school funding system, and on top of that at least he would push to repeal No Child Left Behind.

3. Anti-abortion. But he's agreed to leave the question of abortion to the states, which is something. With a Democratic Congress, which we will most likely have, that wouldn't be too disastrous.

4. He opposes the UN.


However, I agree with his fiscal and international policy ideas, and the concepts of state's rights and minimal intervention at the federal level. I've always felt that the only thing the federal government should enforce on the states are basic human rights and equality, and if necessary, protections for minors and the mentally handicapped/ill. Ideally the states would take care of the minors and mentally ill themselves, but they don't.

But I most likely won't vote for Ron Paul because of his stance on the rights of homosexuals, and I wouldn't vote for him anyway unless it looked like my vote didn't really matter in terms of keeping the religious right out of office.