My Party; The Hypocrisy in Our Bipartisan System

The bipartisan system. What a concept. A system in which believing in a laissez faire economic system and the right to abortion are incompatible. I think what bothers me the most about bipartisanism are the candidates. Although, upon reflection the candidates are likely motivated to act by what they believe their “party” wants. Or perhaps what their “party” wants is really what is required to become nominated as a “representative of the party”. The thinking is something like: “If you’re not “Republican” enough you won’t appeal to the “Republican” vote so we can’t nominate you, regardless of how socially logical your policies might be”. So perhaps it is simply a nasty cycle that American voters have precipitated since the birth of our Constitution.

To be sure, there are benefits of the system. Some additional checks and balances that even the Framers never intended. I have to be honest, though: the idea that a woman in our Nation cannot freely exercise the right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy appalls me. That is simply one belief I think there is simply no place for in the world and I consider myself to be sympathetic to some pretty outrageous ideas and social policies, conservative and liberal alike. It further appalls me when MEN have the audacity to speak on a WOMAN'S right to choose. (This comment is made in regards to the overarching issue, I do believe I man has every right to assert his belief on the matter when it comes to his own child, but in that circumstance alone. Otherwise, I find this issue to be one that is exclusively a “women’s issue” only because when it really comes down to it, a woman is really the one who will suffer the ultimate sacrifices of bearing a child. A man may participate in the child's life or not at his will.) Obviously, I cannot and would not argue that abortion is good or right or Christian. Nonetheless, imposing a responsibility of bearing a child on a woman simply because of her female status and the truly unavoidable nature of women to get pregnant is a grave disservice to this Nation and most importantly, to that child.

I say unavoidable which is sure to evoke attack. Of course you can use “protection”. But no method of “birth control” apart from sterilization (which some of these lunatics might be lobbying for) is completely effective. Furthermore, the loudest speakers against abortion are generally those who oppose it for religious reasons. Ironically, however, Catholics do not believe in using any method of birth control. I can only presume that those Catholics who actively oppose a woman’s right to choose live in a fantasy world or think women should just be baby makers and rearers (perhaps the ideal of the "fantasy world" and the A.D. women's role are not that inconsistent). Unfortunately, this is the real world. It is a world in which young girls have unprotected sex with other young boys when they are not married. A world where poor single mothers cannot afford to feed their children and those children are growing up without fathers because the father had the “luxury” of leaving to live his own childhood. And so I beg the question, what kind of family values are these?!

Of course, these are not the circumstances of every abortion, or even most abortions, in this country. In fact, I might argue that preventing the precipitation of poverty and teenage motherhood is the “ideal” exercise of a woman’s right to choose (if such an abstract of an "ideal exercise of the right to choose" exists, and of course, it would be secondary to abortion necessitated by health risks). Abortions are expensive for many individuals and difficult to obtain if you do not know how, have no transportation, have no clinics near you, etc. Ironically, babies are more expensive and more difficult to raise than an abortion is to obtain. But welfare assistance is free and relatively easy to get because most poor people know how. If they don’t, they can usually ask a friend or neighbor.

I am appalled because it seems to me that the very same individuals who preach against abortion (and usually vote “Republican”) seem to be opposed to paying for welfare. Those people are nothing but hypocrites. I would challenge those individuals who squarely fit into the group that oppose abortion and favor welfare spending cuts to go to a poor community and talk to teen mothers. Ask them how many of them would have gotten an abortion if given the opportunity at a low reasonable cost and if the abortion was made accessible. Welfare is accessible. People in poor communities know how to get welfare and yet they can’t get an abortion so they can’t get off welfare because they have children to raise and they can’t work because they have no education because they dropped out of high school because they were pregnant because they could not get an abortion. I think you know where I am going with this. Furthermore, even if they got a job that required no job skills or education (which exist but we still don’t hire people who don’t have a high school education because we now hire college grads for these jobs!) they would have no health benefits and end up making less money than they did on welfare. (I suggest you read The Working Poor by David Shipler who addresses these issue in depth).

I challenge people who fit squarely in that category of believing in “pro-life/welfare cuts” to go to improverished communities and ask teen mothers that would have opted for an abortion if it were cheap and readily available to them how many of them think they would have finished at least high school. Or how many of those women think their lives would be better if they had not had to care for a small child when they were themselves a small child. Or more importantly, how many of them think their child’s lives would be better if they had waited until they were an adult to have a baby. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were fiscally prepared for the event. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were married and lived with a husband and had a dual income. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they had an education which allowed them to assist the child with their homework. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they weren’t living in a housing project surrounded by addicts, gangs and drug dealers.

I challenge those idealists to go to improvished communities and ask how many people support their cause! I can guarantee they’ll find not one person who supports their cause or agrees with their views. I imagine some argument along the lines of “it’s because these people are uneducated free-loaders”. The truth is rather that those fitting squarely within this ideology are uneducated themselves. They are uneducated about the true social issues the surround those on welfare.

Why could they find not one person? It is because they have no idea what they are talking about and seek to impose their idealistic views on a world they know nothing about. Worse, however, is that they make no attempt to find out what the issues in the “ghettos” are. They simply don’t care. They think that every clump of cells in a womb has the right to be brought into gang banging poverty; has the right to families that can barely afford food; has the right to have inadequate education; has the right to lack responsible parents that wanted to or were ready to have children; and has the right to have little or no hope of breaking that cycle. Then, they seek to impose social policies that will make the situation in this clump of cell’s life even bleaker.

Bipartisanism bothers me because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose not to have a baby she is not financially, emotionally and socially prepared to raise so that we can cut welfare spending. But that “party” doesn’t exist.