Abortion
When it comes to abortion, I am pro-choice. However, I am pro-choice under the guidelines of Roe vs. Wade. I'm sure that there are people that wonder how a Republican like myself can be pro-choice. I don't think that I'm alone. If you check out GOPChoice.com or Republicans For Choice, you will see that between seventy and eighty percent of Republicans are pro-choice to various degrees. Here are my reasons: First of all, until you can guarantee birth control methods that are 100% effective, there needs to be a way to end an unwanted pregnancy in the case of birth control failure if that is what the woman chooses. I also feel that you have to allow a woman to make a choice when a pregancy results from rape or incest. Then there also needs to be a choice when there is evidence of grave fetal deformity, or the medically necessary abortions needed to save the life of the mother. I know that allowing abortion for grave fetal development problems smacks of social engineering, but you have to make allowances providing that there are safeguards to prevent government mandated abortions for social engineering purposes. Allowing reasonable restrictions keeps everyone honest including the government. Here's what allowing abortions with reasonable restrictions accomplishes: First of all, reasonable regulations make sure that the procedure is safe. Secondly, the bigger reason to have reasonable restrictions on abortion in this country is something that most people don't think about. It's the Far Left's attempt to implement social engineering through eugenics. If you allow totally unrestricted abortion, you are setting the stage for government mandated abortions for social engineering purposes. That could include male and female birth quotas, race quotas, and/or population control quotas. Eugenics was a popular subject among the Socialist Elites at the beginning of the 20th Century, and has started to gain popularity again in Sweden and the Netherlands. Those aformentioned Elites were fully supportive of using social engineering in order to create a so called Aryan Race. Elites like George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Margaret Sanger and others, called for the elimination of Africans, the Southern European peasant classes, and other "undesirables" though the introduction of fatal diseases, mandatory abortion, euthanasia, and mass starvation.

What is meant by pro-choice? The word here is choice. Totally unregulated abortion could take away choice, and could be used by the government, or certain suspect non-governmental agencies, as social engineering. To prevent this, you must have at least some value attached to unborn life. Taking away the right to an abortion creates the same problem. It eliminates choice, and could allow the government to force women to have children that they don't want in order to use forced birth as a social engineering tool. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor brought up the question during oral arguments during Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. That question was, "If you take away the right to choose to have an abortion, does that not also take away the right to choose to have a child?" Again, the word here is "CHOICE." Taking away choice would allow the government, or various non-governmental organizations funded by the UN, to use abortion as a eugenics tool. Here is a possible scenario: A corrupt Socialist government eventually takes over the United States. This government "determines" that there are too many babies being born to the inner city, mostly African American, underclass. Not enough white upper middle class babies are being born to balance things out. Therefore, it becomes mandatory for blacks to have abortions, and it becomes mandatory for whites to be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. One reason could be that there is a shortage of white babies for adoption. Who could be behind a movement like this? How about the lawyers that charge huge fees to lead childless couples through the legal morass that is part of the bureaucratic nightmare of the adoption process? Also, you need to have a viable working population of working, middle, and upper middle class workers to tax, in order to redistribute income from these working classes to the social progams supporting the underclass. Rather than spending the time fixing the problems that have created the underclass and eliminating poverty through quality education, economic empowerment in the inner cites that create jobs and the development of inner city small businesses, and encouraging personal responsibility, you continue to keep the underclass where it is for political and personal power purposes. At the same time, you need to have an ever increasing source of funding that can be redistributed from those that work to those that don't through higher and higher taxes. The more redistributed income there is, the more that will be available to siphon off lining the pockets of those managing the social programs with their rackettering schemes in cahoots with corrupt government officials.

Here's another example: In China, you are allowed one birth. All other pregnancies must be terminated. Sex selection abortions are supposedly illegal, but are mandatory as well. Go figure...That's not choice. It is a government controlled program for social engineering. China claims that it is for population control. That's the "official" position. China also executes thousands of criminals per year for crimes ranging from murder to possession of drugs. The Chinese government, and being a Communist country where all industries are owned and controlled by the government, leads the world in the sale of human and fetal body parts. Here's where things begin to raise an even uglier head. If the government starts to encourage something that smacks of social engineering, I find it suspect. Follow the money trail. When you don't get enough participation, the government mandates it. Throw in several thousand executions per year and have all industries owned and/or controlled by the government including the sale of human body parts. Add to that mandatory government social programs involving health and quality of life issues, and things get dangerous. Get the picture?

I do not want to see abortion become a eugenics tool in this country, which I feel would happen if it was totally unregulated and there were no restrictions on it. I will cover the eugenics subject in greater detail in another rant, but here's some food for thought on the subject: Again as I eluded to before, you allow totally unregulated abortion. You add that to allowing or encouraging euthanasia along with government controlled failing socialized medicine programs like they have in the socialistic countries of Western Europe. To me it sounds like the temptation to use these things for the purposes of social engineering could be too great for some corrupt government officials. How about if all nations gave up their sovereignty and became "global citizens" under the Internationalist Socialists controlling the UN with all their corruption? At the same time, you have totally unregulated abortion coupled with mandatory euthanasia, mandatory rationed health care, and mandatory forced birth control programs...scary isn't it?

Go back to Roe vs Wade for a minute. While there are people that feel that it never should have happened, and there are others that feel that Roe doesn't go far enough in guaranteeing a woman's reproductive rights, Roe is a very fair and well thought out compromise. It guarantees a women to basically the unlimited right to an abortion during the first trimester. During the second trimester more restrictions are allowed, mostly to ensure the safety of the procedure, and during the third trimester when the fetus becomes viable, it now starts having rights too. It sounds very reasonable to me. Leave Roe exactly as it is. It has worked very well for over 30 years.