COLUMN: An end to abortion?
The most powerful Democrat in the country next to Michael Moore and Bruce Springstein is a USU graduate. Yep, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently selected to be the new Democratic leader of the Senate. Reid graduated from USU back in 1961. And now, more than 40 years later, he’s right in the middle of all the debate.
Growing up with a father who never graduated from eighth grade and a mother who never graduated from high school, Reid was determined to get an education. As a high-schooler, he used to hitchhike 40 miles to and from school each day. Eventually, he’d work his way through college, law school and now to the top of the U.S. Congress. And it all began in a little, Nevada mining town in a house that didn’t even have hot water or an indoor toilet.
It makes such a good story, you almost feel like breaking out the “Rudy” music. The poor guy didn’t stand a chance. And look at him now.
But as the world anxiously tunes in, not many around town seem to know or care. Of course, if he was a Republican, maybe we’d all be excited, probably even kill the fatted calf for the big day.
Well you see, it’s tough to be excited about a person who’s pro-abortion. Wait, you mean Reid opposes abortion (the first pro-life Democratic leader since 1989). Well, he represents an immoral party, so it’s all the same. Hold on, he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an active, devout member no less. Oops. Now how did that happen?
In an election where voters cast their ballots based on moral issues more than ever before, making Reid a Senate leader could be monumental.
With several Supreme Court Justices approaching retirement and an ultra-conservative in the White House, there is a very real chance that the Roe v. Wade decision could be overturned.
I’m not so naïve as to think that the whole Democratic Party would completely drop the “pro-choice” plank from its platform. Yet.
But Reid could help change that. If the nation’s most powerful Democrat can embrace an anti-abortion ideal, why can’t the rest?
Then, we could really get down to business. We wouldn’t be caught up in the same old battle that a majority of Americans already believe to be morally wrong.
After all, doesn’t the word “abortion” give you the impression that something’s gone awry? “Mission aborted,” in the movies always means something’s gone drastically wrong.
Since when is childbearing such a wrong thing? Maybe if we looked at it in a more positive light, American homes wouldn’t be disintegrating at such an alarming rate
Well, you’re stomping on a woman’s right to choose some argue. So, we sugarcoat it by calling abortion “pro-choice.” Why not call it, “pro-killing unborn children?” Aren’t we stomping on their right to life?
As for me, I’m pro-choice. Call me anti-force. I’m all for letting people making their own decisions. The only difference between me and the rest of the pro-choice world is defining when that choice is made. The moment a person engages in sexual intercourse, I believe they have made their choice and accepted the possibility of having a child. Once that decision has been made, you’ve got to accept the consequences if and when they come.
You can’t make a decision, especially one that important, then blink your eyes a few times and say, “I did not just do that” and pretend it never happened.
Yet, many do. And I’m afraid as it becomes more socially acceptable, people are more and more casual about committing such a crime.
But, in time that might all change. I hope.
Thanks in part to a little, old USU graduate.
Jon Cox is a junior majoring in print journalism. Comments can be sent to jcox@cc.usu.edu.