Response to a very touchy subject.

    This is definitely a very difficult subject, not one that is easily tackled in a government blog. Kelly Rogers expresses an opinion that is very common in America, a moral objection to the practice of abortion. However, her focus in the article is not so much the religious minefield that is the pro-choice/pro-life debate, but the way in which that debate might soon be affecting American citizens. She lays out the details of the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill championed by Mr. Obama, which, according to Ms. Rogers would allow abortions after the stage of viability and remove all restrictions from the abortion providers regarding consent of the significant people in the woman's life. She expresses concern with Mr. Obama's eagerness to pass this bill and what that eagerness might mean for the American government.

    Just the mention of such a subject is sure to light a few fires, and Ms. Rogers handles the issue fairly delicately, especially since the issue is not exactly conducive for a "middle ground" opinion. She understands that all her readers are going to either agree or disagree vehemently. But while she is respectful of dissenting voices, she is somewhat fuzzy on the facts, and her evidence is not clearly laid out. Granted, the "facts" of the abortion debate are notoriously elusive, as most tellingly evidence by the constant battle over the meaning and importance of "viability." However, Ms. Rogers states definitively that any abortion performed after 21 weeks ("or so") is murder, when in reality, a cutoff point is much harder to pin down.

    Apart from the trickiness of the facts, I both agree and disagree with her conclusion. True, she and I stand on complete opposite ends of the debate, and we would battle it out over the morality of the issue, but I understand her concern as a taxpayer in being forced to subsidize a practice that she feels to be murder. On the other hand, most pro-lifers use religious logic as the basis for their arguments, and by giving in to their view of the issue and limiting my choices, I would be forced to live my life according to a religion that I do not belong to and that I feel has caused countless more murders than abortion ever could. Also, I disagree that this act will necessarily lead to so many more abortions. Obama will also place an emphasis (perhaps a much greater emphasis) on birth control programs that will cut down on the number of abortions in a much more positive way, by reducing the need for them rather than reducing a woman's rights.

    Really, this issue is not so different from many others facing American citizens. There are countless opinions in our country, and all of us will resent the way that our tax dollars are used at some point. Ms. Rogers opposes her money being spent on murdering the unborn, and I oppose my money being spent on murdering Iraqis. But the abortion issue is one that I truly believe will never be resolved. You either believe that abortion is murder or you don't. If you believe that it is murder, you would try to stop it at all cost; but if you believe it is a woman's natural right, you would try to uphold it at any price. Therefore, without trying to sound pessimistic, there can be no significant compromise. But the debate will rage on, and the tides of opinion will continue to affect women's rights for the worse or the better. I just hope for my own and for every other woman's sake that each ebbing of the tides brings even a little gain in upholding our interests.