A sidebar question for those who are able to THINK about the issue of federal funding for abortions

I'd like to add a personal philosophical inquiry of mine that comes up every time someone mentions abortion in any context. I've been pro-life. I've been pro-choice. My personal position now is based entirely on my current circumstances, but I always question it, because new ideas always come with the progress of time, along with new developments in technology and social evolution. So here is the question.

Which of these options shows more of a respect or consideration for the value of human life:

1. Offer women the opportunity to abort a pregnancy before a baby/fetus is developed enough to have a consciousness or a "self".

2. Offer the opportunity to abort a baby/fetus at any time before the point of complete birth.

3. Demand that every baby/fetus that is formed in any circumstance must be carried to term if medically possible and given birth to, whether or not the parent(s) have the money to support the child or an adoptive family available to them.

4. Allow that any baby/fetus produced by incest or rape may be aborted but that in any other circumstance the baby/fetus must be allowed to be born if the mother is physically capable, whether or not the parent(s) have the money to support the child or an adoptive family available to them.

The real things to consider in these options are in part logistical and in part extremely philosophical. One must look at the potential quality of life for the child, the quality of life for the parents, the cost to the community of supporting the child, the value of the child to the community. Just as relevant though is the question of the existence of a soul and at what point it starts to exist if it does. How far does development progress before a baby/fetus is considered a human life? One may even ask what value does any individual human life with the full potential for good and evil behavior have?

These questions are important because of federal funding for clinics that provide abortions. There are inevitably some things that a massive group of people will not agree on. To cite a non-controversial example, I lived in a shared space last summer. We were splitting bills- electric, rent, water. One roommate wanted cable tv, wanted us all to split the bill. The majority of us did not have the money to pay for anything extra so we didn't want to get cable. In the end he ended up having cable installed and said he would pay for it himself. Of course since we were all tight budgeted he got behind on the bill and service was shut off. He demanded that since some of us watched television we should have to help him pay for it. We didn't want the cable in the first place. This roommate also demanded we help take care of a dog he brought home that we begged him not to get because we didn't want to help take care of it, so maybe this is a better example of short-sightedness and selfishness in a community, but it's also a good reflection on what happens in a community when the majority disagrees with the minority. In the end, when we all ended up using the tv, who was responsible for the cost? And what measures could/should we have taken to prevent him from getting the service in in the first place?

In legal issues, a minority disagreement often leads to a blackmarket or underground societal workings. In financial issues, it leads to a lot of mudslinging. When the majority made abortions illegal, people who provided them went underground to meet the demand. People got hurt. When the majority decided to legalize abortion it was able to be regulated for the improved health and safety of the citizens. However, what happens when the majority believes that abortion should be legal, but a huge number of citizens do not want to their tax dollars used to pay for a service they believe is immoral? They could withhold their taxes as a protest, but that would risk prison and not very many people in this country are willing to risk physical discomfort to stand up for their beliefs. Instead, they supported the end to federal funding of clinics that provide reproductive care- but some of those services are services they need, such as low cost gynecological exams. Cutting of their nose to spite their face so to speak, or shooting themselves in the foot. So long as the majority of Americans are in favor of spending tax money to provide affordable abortions to citizens with low income, that is what we will do. This may not always be the case however. Those who support clinics that provide low cost abortions may need to be willing to support them with their own money if the majority rules that federal funds should not be supplied to facilities that provide abortions. If your vote is not in the majority that is the price you pay for the times that your vote is in the majority. In order to keep funding for healthcare and birth control doctors who provide abortions may need to split off into entirely separate (and separately funded) clinics, which would be a terrible stretch of resources, but what is the most efficient is not always the most ethical.

Personally, in reference to the taxes we pay and the money this country has at its disposal, I still can't figure out why I can get my birth control pills for nearly nothing, but I can't get the same financial consideration when I get strep throat or need physical therapy for a back injury. I guess the majority that votes on healthcare has it's priorities in favor of reproductive health, but not in favor of overall health... doesn't make much sense to me.

Question 1: Planned Parenthood

Question 1: Planned Parenthood: What is the purpose of the federal budget?

Like many other women, I was deluged with requests from Planned Parenthood advocacy groups to show my support of Planned Parenthood in the recent legislative decisions on the federal budget. Planned Parenthood is a program- one of many- that makes rather expensive services available to those of us on the crappy end of the pay-scale, at little or no cost depending on income. Specifically, Planned Parenthood supplies millions of women and men with information and treatment in regards to reproductive health and family planning. Federal funding of this program allows people, who could not otherwise afford these services, access to life changing (and sometimes life-saving) care. I have been one of those women. In 2008 I had my annual exam and abnormal cell growth was found. Within a few weeks I was able to have a colposcopy performed and to verify an HPV infection, no cancerous growth. Without that exam and the follow up that infection could have gotten a lot worse. Without being able to find out for sure that I didn’t have cancer I would have worried myself sick, probably sicker than what I was. I also get my birth control through a federally funded clinic. Because of this use of government funds I have been empowered by my country to choose when/if I have a baby, and to be prepared when I get pregnant. I really appreciate the access to the treatment that I am provided with and the freedom to engage in a healthy and uplifting sexual relationship without becoming pregnant. I believe that federal funding of this program allows people to take advantage of scientific progress that gives us more control over our physical lives than we would otherwise- it allows us to really embrace what it means to be human beings. This makes this specific budgeting issue very important to me. So, what are the questions here? On the surface this seems to be plainly about money. There are limited funds and a lot things that need money, so some things have to get cut right? It took me a while to work around this issue, and it wasn't until the decision was made (in favor of PP) that I realized the core question.

I am an advocate of personal responsibility- choosing with forethought, in acceptance of any possible results- including things that could happen that I can’t control or predict- and then being responsible for the results, no matter what they are. You weight the options and the outcomes and decide what to do in any decision right? When I heard all the fuss my first question was:

Should the government have to supply any citizens with access to free/low cost birth control? Shouldn't being able to afford the birth control (ie, having income and managing money properly) be the inital of personal responsibility for anyone engaging in a sexual relationship?

This is a good question, but not the applicable issue here. Not only does Planned Parenthood do a lot more than just BC pills, but that sort of thinking sidesteps the budget vote and addresses philosophical issues that probably won’t be resolved in the near future (curious teenagers are just going to not have sex because they don’t have money right? I think not). It took me a while to realize that I was looking at the wrong aspect of the issue for the current question. Yes, it’s an issue of responsibility, but in this case it is a different responsibility. So, the first applicable question I came up with is:

What is the budget?

The money the government is trying to decide what to do with is our money. It is our taxes, our donations- it is the money we put into the pool that allows the U.S. to care for the U.S., for us. Without the people there is no United States- without a “governed” there is no “government”. The reason there was an issue is because the government was trying to decide if funding for family planning was a priority to the government's interests instead of looking at the interests of the people. We have agreed to act as citizens by obeying the laws that we believe are in our interest as a united whole, including taxation. We pay taxes because it is required of citizens to participate in their own care, the care of the country. The same way you pay dues to any social or religious organization you are a member of, you pay to be a member of the organization that is the United States. And the same as a church or a social club or a credit union even, the people who pay have the say. The people who exchange some value in the form of money for the values of being a member of a group- values like police, road repairs, regulation of food preparation etc.- are the power of the group. As in any organization, in many cases we agree to the direction of those who have experience and knowledge that we may not possess as individuals. We defer to economists who look at economic conditions the way we defer to a meteorologist looks at the conditions that define weather. We trust doctors to heal us, judges to make fair rulings- those with knowledge. And for the most part, when we trust people who have proven they can be depended upon, this helps us with efficiency and overall productivity. This is why we elect officials to be our spokespeople. BUT, it is up to us to know whom we are electing and to monitor their behavior once they are on a decision making platform- what sort of person they are, what is important to them, what they think and what they do about what they think. The job of those elected is to consider the experts and the will of the people. And if the will of the people is not in the best interest of the people, it is their job to explain the conflict so that we, the people, can then make a better informed decision; they are not to just do whatever is in their interests and then kiss-ass to get reelected after they earn our distrust. The question that needed to be asked, the real question, when those who we have voted into office were making decisions that we disagreed with is this:

Is reproductive healthcare a budget priority for American citizens?

Americans spoke out and we gave our elected officials a resounding YES! We actually used the system the way it was meant to be used.

From the looks of things it was not a priority for those in office. They have other things they would like to use our money for. Maintaining military footholds in other countries takes precedence over healthcare or peace efforts. Things like commercial space craft are a bigger priority for them than financing sustainable energy sources. Washington threatened to come to a standstill over budgeting disagreements (but of course in the last instant they didn’t, they like to eat too). I would like to know, how many Americans were actually that split over the budget choices? And because every good question brings up more good questions, here they are:

If federal budget issues were taken to the polls would Americans have been in a deadlock or would there have been a clear majority idea of what we want to spend OUR money on?

Why don’t high school economics or social studies or U.S. Government classes explain things like this so that the 18 year old graduates can go into their first voting year informed about why voting is so important and with some idea of what they want to vote for?

When will Americans stop putting their power in the embodiment of a power structure that we put into place, while complaining that we never really get what we want from that structure? Do we really want to put away from ourselves the power of decision making in order to reap the benefits of the good decisions while never taking responsibility for the wrong ones?

If the majority of Americans no longer support war efforts, why is our money still being spent on those efforts?

How much money was paid in taxes in 2010? How are those funds being allocated?

Money is such an important consideration for people, why do they just bitch about taxation instead of seeing what is actually going on and uniting to change what doesn’t comply with the wishes of the people?

Why are those who can afford their healthcare lobbying to make is so that the majority of American citizens don’t have access to affordable healthcare? Or are they? Who actually supports (initiates and progresses) the policies that so many Americans do not agree with? What majority of what group makes it happen? What is their goal? Or is this just the end-result of an overall lacksidaisical attitude about personal involvement in the government?