Saturday, 11 February 2012


Ken Berwitz

Since I've blogged a great deal about abortion over the past several days, and some readers might assume the blogs reflect my personal views rather than political analysis, it occurs to me that I should outline my position on this issue.

I believe that the one and only valid issue of abortion is when there is a living human being. 

When does that occur?  Well, think of an empty lot, on which someone has placed all the materials necessary to build a house. 

-Before any construction takes place, is there a house?  Nope, just the materials to build one. 

-At the very end, when everything is built and all that is needed is the last hinge on the front door?  Yes, of course there is a house.  Who would disagree with that?

At some point between those two extremes, therefore, it became a house.  When did it happen?  People will differ on the answer. 

So it is with abortion. 

My personal opinion is that, as opposed to Catholic dogma, I do not believe there is a living human being at the point of conception.  I believe there is the start of an organism that can progress to the point when it is a living human being.   To me, that point is reached when it has an independently beating heart and brain activity.

Therefore I support the use of all birth control methods, including the so-called "morning after" pill.  And I support the right to abort a pregnancy until there is an independently beating heart and brain activity, thus a living child.  After that, the only valid reason for abortion would be very extreme circumstances - e.g. if the mother's life is in danger (for real:  not because someone found an amoral doctor willing to "play ball").

Regarding women's rights, I believe that they are entirely dependent on when and whether it is a child.  A woman should have full rights to abort before there is a child.  It is her body.  But after it has become a living child - except for a life-threatening or other very extreme situation - that right ends.  No one has the right to kill a baby. 

I have some other beliefs regarding the rights and options of the biological father, but I'll save them for another blog.

Anyway, that is my position on abortion.  Is it relevant to what I have blogged about President Obama's mandate regarding contraception and abortion services and Catholic institutions?  That's your call.

The other Ken That's a pretty rational way to look at abortion. It'll never fly. (02/11/12)

Zeke .... .... Life begins when the dog dies, and the children move out of the house. ..... ....... (02/11/12)


Ken Berwitz

At some point President Obama will realize that abortion is not a compromise issue - not to people who believe it should be legal and not to people who believe it is the killing of a human being.

President Obama's idea of a "compromise" with Catholic institutions is a quick change from mandating they must offer contraception and abortion services to mandating that the insurance carriers they use must offer them.

Huh?  Wah?  That's supposed to change something?

Ed Morrissey at has an excellent analysis of this fraudulent little PR gimmick from his highly worthwhile blog on Mr. Obama's clumsy attempt to game Catholics.  Here is the meat of it:

Where do insurers get money to pay claims?  They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool.  No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums.  Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this accommodation changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.

This accommodation only attempts to accommodate Obamas political standing and nothing more.

Ed hits the nail right on the head.

This phony-baloney "compromise" will probably convince some people that Mr. Obama has taken care of the matter.  If so that is sad, because the only matter he is trying to take care of is appeasing his pro-choice constituency and pulling the wool over the eyes of pro-lifers.  

One other point to be made here - one I wish I had thought of earlier.  As might be expected, President Obama is going all-out to get a high percentage of the Latino vote in 2012.  But a great many Latinos are deeply religious Catholics. 

If the Republican Party is smart (how's that for an iffy proposition?) it will be make a concerted effort to publicize Mr. Obama's contraception/abortion farce among that segment of the population - with special emphasis on the premise that even if Mr. Obama changes this mandate before the election, it is clear he wants it there, and there will be nothing to stop him from putting it right back at any time during a second term.

Republicans have political dynamite of the first order in the palms of their hands.  Will they recognize it and act accordingly? 

We'll see.....

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!