William Thien

Abortion and The True Conservative

Posted on: June 22, 2010

Were someone to consider the very definition most commonly used of a “Conservative,” one thinks of small, efficient government, fewer social programs, and a freer citizenry that is less encumbered by useless and intrusive laws meant more to control social behavior for the benefit of a certain portion of society rather than the general freedom of the individual.

But there are some elements of many conservative platforms that would seem to defy directly any true definition of a conservative.

One of the most obvious to me is that of abortion. It is my belief that a true conservative would not ban abortion. From the point of view of a true conservative, the matter of abortion has nothing to do with the ‘Right to Life’ movement or any other similar group. The matter of abortion is simply a matter of social economics and taxation.

“How can that be,” you might ask? “What does abortion have to do with taxes?”

It may not be so obvious on the surface. Permit me to explain.

Many abortions are had by women that are single and in no way could afford to pay for the birth of a child nor support it early on. Few women can work at a job through the birth of a child and return to work soon after. There are some that can, and there are those that would insist that because of those few, we should set our law due to their maternal strength. But I tell you that would be unwise.

Most women know that they cannot carry a child to labor and rear it as well without the support of a husband, father, partner, or family. Many, though, disregard such common sense and insist, some repeatedly, to have children out-of-wedlock and consequently, almost as many fall back on the state for economic and medical support. But just as importantly, it is not the cost of rearing the child and the cost of the medical procedure involved with insuring that the child is born healthy, the cost of administering the programs which the pregnant and unwed woman must utilize is enormous. Those social workers and other government employees, whether they work directly for the government or for some subsidized social services agency, do not for the most part make $10.00 an hour. Many start at $40,000 a year with full benefits here in this state. Many earn much more than that.

Now, when I say “state,” we all know what I am talking about. You and I. Our taxes. Our earnings. Because we all know that without our taxes, there would be no “State.”

You might say, “I know where you are going with this. Oh, how cruel of you to leave a woman financially stranded with a child.”

To the contrary, I say, “How disrespectful of our fellow citizens to strap them with the weight of your sexual indiscretion. They are already working laboriously to provide for their own children. Why should they have to pay for the rearing of other children without their own consent and through no fault of their own?” They should not.

Given the current socialist/communist government system that pervades our country, I do not see such social laws changing in the near future. But, we can lessen the burden on the family that is already struggling to support its own children, struggling to feed them, cloth them, send them to school.

We can do this by keeping abortion legal. Because once that child is born, chances are that the child will utilize some form(s) of social program, free medical care, free school lunches, free breakfast, free books, free ride to school, you name it, for the rest of their adolescent life. Because their mother was unwed, statistically, there is a greater chance that the child will become involved in crime later on in life. Essentially, children that are born under the aforementioned circumstances become lifetime wards of the state.

And that IS expensive. No true conservative would go for that.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.


13 Responses to "Abortion and The True Conservative"

Goldwater felt that abortion was none of the government’s business. But, if you believe that it takes a life, than it is. Life must be considered a sanctity.

I could not agree with you more. The problem is that it is quite possible we are talking about two different forms of life.

For example, recently a friend returned from a business trip to some southern states. While there he had seen billboards placed in certain areas advising women not to have abortions because “They” (and it was unclear who “They” were) are just around the corner from obtaining a congressional or senate seat. So, in that case the child is not just a child, it is not just a form of life, it is a political tool. I would be willing to guess that is not exactly what you had in mind when you used the term “life.”

But in many other circumstances as well, a child is not just a child, it is a way to make a living, a way to become eligible for a myriad of government programs, regular government checks. Having that child or those children is now a profession, a form of employment. The only problem is that you and I are the employers. We are the ones paying the employee’s salary, the employee being the woman who gets pregnant so she can indeed get those government checks. Our laws do not prevent that kind of behavior. And what of the family that is struggling to pay its own bills and feed and cloth its own children?

So, again the child in the aforementioned circumstances is not just a child, it has taken on an entirely different dimension(s). It is not just a life, though it may be alive. But it is just as importantly a tool to many, a political tool, or a profession, and we are the employers. I don’t need that kind of worker. And I do not see why I need to keep paying their salary?

And yet up and down the street there are families that are struggling, working two and three jobs to pay to feed and cloth their own children. What of their fate does such a burden bring?

I could not agree with you more that we must believe in the sanctity of life. Yet, it is quite possible that we are indeed talking about two different forms of life, at least in the way you or I might define it.

And finally, many people don’t have a very high regard for politics. Just as many more probably hate their jobs. If a person or group of people are willing to use their own children as political tools, pawns for political gain, or use their child for monetary gain such as in a socially questionable means of employment as I mentioned previously, what for that matter might they be willing to do to you or to your children?

I think the question deserves consideration.

in fact, i almost consider it conspiratorial malfeasance on the part of the state to ‘reward’ illegitmate child birth and other forms of sloth by handing out food stamps and housing vouchers in accord with said pathologies. Talk about poisoning the well!

It is probably more planned than it is malfeasance. Socialists who are employed by the government increase their job security by perpetuating social programs. No social programs and no jobs for socialists. They are probably taught this in school when they train to be social workers.

A mother has no more “right” to be free of the burden of the baby’s life than she would have the right to be free of the burden of making whole someone that she hit while drunk driving.

Her own risk-taking choices placed the baby’s life in jeopardy, so she is responsible for that life.

The only truly Conservative perspective is that she take that responsibility, not try to dodge it.

The abortionist feminazis’ defense of abortion tends to center around absolutely sociopathic arguments of convenience. Women shouldn’t have to take care of babies they don’t want…killing a baby is preferable to being inconvenienced for nine months as a result of their own actions.

There’s a good reason why REAL feminists fought to get abortion banned.

Perhaps I would agree with Kazvorpal that “the mother has no more ‘right’ to be free of the burdern of the baby’s life,” but I myself have a right to be free of the burden of the baby’s life and so do my neighbors. If that woman is having a child out of wedlock and has no way to pay for it, that means she will be falling back on public assistance. In other words, I have to pay for it. I would ask that Kazvorpal read my initial posting on the matter. It is not a question of pro-choice or feminism, it is a question of economics. If someone in a completely different state in a completely different part of the country goes on public assistance, someone I will probably never meet and may never have any contact with, then I have to pay for it. And if that someone is a woman having indiscreet sexual contact, I think I should have the choice of not having to pay for the result. Some people, in this case they may very well be the pro-lifers, are socialists and communists and they don’t even know it. Yet they try to define conservatism.

You say “Her own risk-taking choices placed the baby’s life in jeopardy, so she is responsible for that life.”

But in fact the mother and child more often than not become a ward of the state through subsidy and the baby becomes the responsibility of the people.

i think it’s a conundrum: i don’t believe in abortion; to me, there is a larger social and spiritual rot that seeps into society once abortion is allowed to systematically exist that can and would overwhelm the negatives of mothers unable to take care of their children; of course, i in no way disagree with you about the unfairness of taxpayers having to support someone else’s sexual indiscretion

My original and main point as you reiterated in your comment is that taxpayers should not have to pay for someone else’s sexual behavior. And it’s not just a night of lascivious behavior. More often than not it’s a lifetime of public assistance payments, like an extended prison sentence in a way, especially when you burden the taxpayer with the legions of unwed pregnancies.

I want to add that one of the reasons I omitted the feminist argument and any response to it in my original post, that to have an abortion is a woman’s choice because it’s her body, is that I think that position is a selfish and perhaps chauvinistic position, not to mention as the pro-lifers put it, a stance I don’t agree with, murder.

Abortion is not murder in the sense that we understand it. Because of religion and the complexities of law we still do not have a readily defined date after conception of when the fetus is determined even to have rights or to be a whole person.

Ultimately, though, I think those arguments distract from the original idea of my post. That taxpayers should not have to pay for another person’s sexual indiscretion. Simple as that.

Finally, the more I examine the tactics and strategies utilized by the pro-lifers, the obscene billboards they hold up beside the street outside of clinics and the shouting at cars indicates that they may very well not be conservatives, as most claim, or may not be aware of what damage they are doing to the conservatives as it is my opinion that they drive away the female vote from the conservative side of things. Why? Because ultimately the female believes in that chauvinistic position on abortion I mentioned previously. It’s a woman’s body and she should have the right to do what she wants. If the conservatives are saying you can’t have an abortion, then she is going to go where they say you can do what you want with your own body. And that’s usually the liberal side of politics.

I’m pro-choice. That said, I do view abortion as a worst-case-scenario, because it does take a physical and psychological toll. I think we would all be better served by a system that provided sex-education in public schools, with a special emphasis on birth control methods and personal responsibility. I know that when I attended high school in the ’90s, we had some discussion of B.C. in our sophomore year health class. Not enough! There were girls in my 7th grade class who dropped out because they were pregnant. That’s middle school. I’m talking about 12 to 14-years-old.

But of course, the politicians who run the schools are afraid to provide this type of education because the deluded parents of “special snowflake” children can’t see the bigger picture. It would save us all money if we could do something about the teen birth rate in this state. That’s not going to happen until parents can admit that their children aren’t the perfect angels that they think they are.

I have to say that I, personally, would be more inclined to vote for conservatives if it meant more personal freedom. These days, however, it seems that conservative politicians are more interested in protecting the freedoms of big business than those of individuals.

[…] Outlawing abortion, for example, increases government in a massive way. Banning birth control does the same as both outlawing abortion and banning birth control are in direct opposition to human nature. People are going to have sex, even if they can’t afford to raise the resultant progeny. That means that single women will have to fall back on the government to birth and raise that child. And they do. Last year over fifty percent of children were born to single mothers. HALF of all babies were born to single mothers. Now you know that means bigger government. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

June 2010
    Jul »
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: