The Endless Abortion Debate

     In a blog post on Redstate, author Breeanne Howe writes about the candidate’s arguments on abortion during the first Vice Presidential debate.  More specifically, she notes the common religion of Catholicism that both candidates share, and how their faith affected their views on this particular subject. 

     In this post, I believe the author is reaching out mostly to the pro-life community in an attempt to reassure them of their belief, and as if to remind them that abortion is wrong and that any life is worth saving.  While she doesn’t direct hard-hitting facts toward the community of pro-abortionalists, I do believe she speaks to them though emotion-triggering arguments of the cruelty that abortion implies.

     As for Howe’s credibility, she is well informed on the subject, and includes reason and science to support her argument; however, it is very clear her opinion is not completely unbiased, but with a subject such as abortion, no person can eloquently base their belief on facts and reason when a child’s life is at stake. 

     Breeanne Howe argues that life is created at conception, and no matter how you look at it, an unborn child is still a child.  At the beginning of her post, she mentions that both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan share similar beliefs concerning their faith and abortion.  However, Ryan is the only one who is actively proclaiming his views, while Biden simply insists he does not wish to impose his belief on other that may not hold the same position.  Isn’t that the entire point of this debate?  To present your views in a way that causes other to see your judgment and join you in your beliefs?  I strongly agree with Howe when she notes that the Vice President’s statement on not wishing to impose his beliefs on other is a weak excuse with which most everyone in the pro-life community is familiar. 

     In addition, when Howe introduces the fact that while Ryan is defending the issues of life, he was obligated to demonstrate unity with Governor Romney’s beliefs (despite the fact that he believes different), and I share his belief in that there should be no exceptions for abortion aside from the life of the mother.  It is in fact Romney who believes exceptions should exists for incest and rape, but just as Howe mentions, these exceptions are just as cruel as an abortion.  The most prevalent point in which I agree with Howe is when she states that the life of a child, and the events that come before life in the womb, should have absolutely no impact on the value of that life.  While this may sound cliché, it is my belief: no matter how dismal or overwhelming a predicament, the blame of that event should never be attributed to an unborn child. 

     In closing, Breeanne Howe gracefully portrays the burden unborn child have had to pay because of the abortion laws in place today, but she also provides hope in the fact that this dark time could pass if Romney wins the elections.  I believe having Romney as President would aid our country in recovering from the suffering the current administration caused.  Like Howe, I believe unborn children desperately need a voice to help prove that all life is precious and valuable, and that punishing the son for the sins of the father is never the answer, nor a principle on which our nation should be based.