Little Wolf's World

I was flipping radio stations on my way home. The talk shows I normally listen to were being pre-empted by a minor league baseball broadcast, and the Indians pre-game programming hadn't started yet. While scanning just to see what else was on the air, I came across a 'Conservative' radio talk show. I have no idea who the two people were who were talking, but the discussion centered on abortion.

I was really rather bothered by the whole of the conversation. They kept referring to 'Pro-Choice' proponents as "The pro-death crowd." I have several problems with this, not the least of which is based on the discussion I am willing to bet that both the host and his guest would be in favor of the death penalty. (Would this not make them 'part of the pro-death crowd.')

The discussion went so far as to speculate what the position of the 'Pro-Choice' peoples position would be if science developed artificial wombs. (I actually began to wonder if either the host or the woman he was talking to were on some kind of drug at that point.)

Some points on the whole issue from my perspective:
1. I feel that abortions should be legal. I do have a problem with abortions being done as a form of birth control, either because none was used initially or because the method used failed, but that is MY problem and I don't believe in a free society I have the right to impose my views on others.

2. I am in favor of the death penalty also being legal. That having been said, I also have a problem with the 'level of usage' (for lack of a better term) of the death penalty, and I am always afraid of it being used to punish an innocent person. I also don't think, just as an additional point here, that Zaccarius Moussoui ( I am not really sure how he spells his name, and frankly don't care) should be put to death. He was NOT a contributor to 9/11, there is some evidence that he may not have truly known what was going to happen and is only saying what ever he has to, to get put to death so that he can be claimed to be a martyr.

3. My position on abortion (since that is really what I wanted to address) is that as long as the fetus can not survive without the aide of extreme medical technologies, an abortion should be legal. If at anytime after that point that the mother's life becomes endangered because of the pregnancy, then an abortion should remain a viable option.

4. To any 'Conservatives' that wish to debate me on this I have 2 questions:
a. Are you going to adopt an increasing number of these children if we totally outlawed abortion?
b. If you are not going to adopt these additional children, are you willing to increase your own taxes in order to help support those children until the age of 18? Many of the additional children will end up either being in orphanages, which need support of the government or a religious institution, or will need government subsidies paid to the mother/parents in order for the children to be raised to be healthy and productive members of society.
c. If your answer to both of your previous questions is NO (you are not willing to adopt the children and you do not wish to have an increase in your taxes to support them), what is your solution to the situation? (The first person who suggests abstinence education gets banned from the blog. After all, while a small percentage of teens do not engage in sex of some type, most due and abstinence education/abstinence pledges are not going to stop a number of teens from having sex. It didn't in the 1950's and 1960's, it didn't in the 1800's it won't now.)

I feel better and feel the need to prepare and eat my dinner. See ya tomorrow.