It is a common saying in our household that we are a “pro-choice family.” When our 15-month old is offered the choice to do something, we praise him when we believe he has made a good choice. As a parent, it is critical to us that he understands that his day is a string of choices that are made, and we are there to help him make good ones. With exception of our preventing him from immediate dangers such as falling down stairs or touching the piping hot coal stove with his bare hands, we let him make many individual choices. And we admonish his choices when praise is due.
The following is a short list of things I am pro-choice on:
- The right to own a gun, carry it concealed, and across state borders, to defend my family and those around me
- The right to decide my own health care provider without paying for the unhealthy activities of others
- The right to opt-out of Social Security and save my own money for my family
- The right to choose which school I send my kids without needing to be wealthy enough to do so
I also ardently defend the rights of others to be free to choose the same.
There’s only one way to get pregnant: sexual intercourse. With exception of the 2% of women who claim rape as the reason they chose have an abortion, that means that 98% of woman who have abortions willingly engaged in sexual intercourse. Even if we played it safe and assumed that “rape stat” is 10%, that means 9 out of 10 women are pregnant because they chose to engage in sexual activity. A choice was made. When a choice is made one must accept the consequences of that choice, whether it was unwanted or not. Individual freedom means personal responsibility. (That also includes the father, perhaps even more so. But even in the abortion rights groups, nobody defends the right of the father to make a decision in the matter.)
The problem with the abortion debate is that it is often framed as an either/or: pro-choice or pro-life. What’s silly is that comparing these two as “opposites” is about as accurate as a five year old’s believing that the opposite of “dog” is “cat.” The two presuppose positive categories (“life” and “choice”) that need not be confused with each other. Both sides of the debate have conveniently left out the notion of responsibility. Those on the pro-choice end leave out the responsibility of a couple to be responsible with sexuality. On the pro-life side the responsibility of compassionate individuals (presumably the same ones defending the unborn) to assist women who face unwanted pregnancies.
In the end, pro-choice means pro-responsibility, but it has become synonymous with anti-consequences. From a legislative point of view, negative consequences can often deter choices that might otherwise be made. I choose to drive the speed limit on most days because I know how expensive it is for my insurance if I were to get caught exceeding the speed limit. Laws should exist to protect from harm and to promote justice. In the United States, that is spelled out in the Constitution: government is to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All three are essential, and none is important enough to trump one of the others (happiness over life in the case of the choice to abort a pregnancy).
We are free to choose, but there are necessary boundaries to be put into place via the law. Once those boundaries are crossed, consequences set in. Besides, we’re such a sex-saturated society, bent on “safe sex.” If after all the effort for increasing education, birth control availability, and condom distribution, you still get pregnant, the responsibility is probably more necessary.
Opponents of Barack Obama’s platform of politics are questioning, if not outright criticizing, the amount of money being spent for Inauguration Day. We’re in a recession, possibly an impending Depression II, and so spending 
Expenditures by the State may be beneficial for the State (government), but they do not work for the economy. If Barack Obama wants to help the economy, he should not be taking money out of it for his own uses, supposedly to “help America.” Let’s get the Depression II over with, and we’ll be better off. 
Just when I was becoming convinced by all my liberal friends that George W. Bush is probably the dumbest man in the world, and surely the stupidest president we’ve ever had, Barack Obama lets us know, even before he is president, that we will need to run trillion dollar deficits for years to come. 
With his new company and new technology, Dow was able to produce bromine very cheaply, and began selling it in the United States for 36 cents per pound. At the time, the government-supported German bromine 
Follow Us!