News and Tribune


June 25, 2013

BEAM: Something to talk about

If you know me, you know I can talk about just near anything with anyone. I’m not a gal that shies away from giving my opinion, whether it’s right, wrong or even requested. 

So why do I have such a difficult time discussing the legal and moral implications of abortion? 

Life is sacred, and to end the existence of a living being regardless of whether they are an innocent unborn fetus or a convicted killer saddens me. That said, I refuse to impose these beliefs on others and will not judge a woman for her decision. Only God has that ability. 

Nor will I criticize the activists who work to overturn Roe v. Wade, especially those whose only goal is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That’s their right, and their choice, as well. A careful balance needs to be maintained to ensure that the reproductive rights given by the courts are upheld without trampling over the rights of the unborn in the process. No, this is no easy task.

Some might call me a hypocrite, straddling the issue with my toes dangling over both sides. And you know what, they’d be right. I can’t explain why I take this stance. It’s a feeling more than anything. No one should be able to put stipulations on ending a life. Somehow though, I’m doing just that. 

You’d think abortion would be a pretty black or white issue, hence the passionate reactions from the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the debate. And for many people it is. Few advocate a middle ground. Not that I blame them. At the center of the arguments both activists stay true to their core moral conviction, whether it be the right for women to control their own bodies or the sanctity of all human life. Compromise can, at times, seem duplicitous.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter