She picked a topic that has been an issue with people around the world since they figured out how to terminate a pregnancy.
CNN.com reports: “Palin opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when a mother’s life is in danger, and said she believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision given to the states.”
This post is not about whether abortion is right or wrong or who should or shouldn’t make the decision. This is about the flaw I see in Palin’s argument.
She believes abortion is not an option regardless of who and how the fetus is fathered. Abortion is only acceptable if the mother’s life is in danger.
Based on her belief, a fetus is a life that is as valid as one that has been born. If that is correct, why have an exemption for the mother if her life is in danger?
Whose life is more important? There are two, one who has yet to be born and has a whole life in front of it and the mother who already had a taste of life?
People may be able to justify either side, but Palin’s exception raises the possibility of other exceptions, because in her eyes the mother’s life has more validity than the unborn child’s life.
Palin would have been better off not touching this sensitive issue for there are no clear answers. It is one question that only the mother can answer and she has to live with her decision.
The rest of us have other issues to deal with such as not murdering people who have not been aborted.
Ichabod,read about what Jesus really said about abortions in the book The Audacity of Jesus. It might actually make the Christian Right lose faith.