All across the country states are passing laws that restrict a woman’s reproductive rights. In state after state, including Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, New Jersey, and Texas states have passed or are trying to pass legislation that would restrict or eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood. In other states, such as Kansas and South Dakota, Republican legislatures have limited when and how a woman can get an abortion, even if she pays for it herself.
Republicans ran on a platform of job creation during 2010, yet none of them has done anything at all to improve the economy. But they can pass bill after bill that restricts the rights of people they believe are somehow less moral than they are. They happily pass constitutional amendments against gay marriage and they are more than eager to pass laws restricting a woman's right to free choice concerning her own body. This is government interference to the extreme (and from so-called small-government conservatives no less).
When reasonable people can disagree vehemently over a principle then neither side should be able to force compliance by the other to its own view. The progressive opinion is to allow a woman the right to choose, regardless of one's own belief about abortion. The conservative opinion is to restrict her freedom so that it complies with the views of the conservative philosophy. It's mad and it's not right.
Even the name of the organization that seeks to outlaw all abortions is a misnomer. They call themselves Pro Life. I don’t know of anyone who is not pro life, even those who favor abortion. Those who favor abortion are pro abortion not anti-life. Those who would prefer to leave decisions on abortion up to the women involved are called Pro Choice. So what the Pro Life crowd really needs to explain is why they are not called what they really are, anti-choice. But they prefer the euphemism.
And don't give me this crap about they're only protecting the rights of the baby. That's kind of what the reasonable people on both sides of the issue are disagreeing about. First of all, it's not a baby; it's a fetus, or an embryo, or a zygote, depending on how long it's been since conception. And it has no rights, other than the right the host grants it. If she wants to take it full term, then it has rights. And that’s the way it should be.
Conservatives are running roughshod over women’s rights because they are stuck in this Christian dogma that informs their actions. But even a Christian can use the bible to prove that the life of a person does not begin at conception. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) So according to the bible, the soul is planted at first breath, not at conception, not even at birth. This is not to confess any personal respect for what the bible has to say about modern life. Is has nothing at all to say about it. But since fundamentalist Christians use the bible to inform all their actions then if they understand their own bible, they should not have a problem with abortion.
It brings up an interesting question. Are conservatives REALLY all that concerned about the rights of an embryo? They seem to no longer give a crap about it once it is born because then they are more than willing to take away mother-infant programs that would help it survive its first few months as a real human. They care not whether or not is has health care insurance. No, once it's born, it can take care of itself for all they care. No, it’s not really about the life of the unborn; it’s about power, power over women and power over everyone who does has a different view of morality than their own.
Fundamentalist Christians have an agenda: To turn America into a Christian theocracy. They want a Christian version of Iran or Pakistan. And if we keep electing these conservative fundamentalists with their twisted view of morality and revisionist take on history, one of these days their desires will be met.