What Same-Sex Marriage is Really About

     The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is, “If two people love each other, why are they not allowed to get married?” While there are many reasons for and against legalizing same-sex marriage, the government should not make its decision based on the argument that people who love each other should be able to get married.

     If we define marriage as two people committing to each other, then gay marriage is completely legal and practiced. There is nothing stopping two people of any gender who love each other from committing to each other, living together, and having a family together. But what people are pushing for is government sanctioned marriage, where the union of two people would be recognized and rewarded by the government. That is the distinction most people don’t understand.

     We need to understand why the government sanctions traditional marriage. It is not because a man and a woman love each other. The government does not care if two people love each other or not. The whole argument about gay marriage is really not about love or equal rights. It’s about what benefits the government. The government supports traditional marriage because traditional marriage benefits it. The government recognizes traditional marriage because it produces children and is the most favorable structure for raising future citizens. Studies show that the best environment for children is an intact, traditional family. Children who grow up in such an environment are much more likely to be profitable for the government when they grow up, and therefore, the government promotes the thing that would produce such citizens. While there are certainly many families with same-sex parents who have the same results, and many traditional families who do not have the same results, the government will go with what is most consistent. Traditional marriage receives government benefits because it benefits the government. While no one is contesting that one person’s love is not equal to another person’s love, in the eyes of the government, traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not equal because one produces future citizens and the other does not. (Although there are always exceptions to every rule.)

The Sonogram Bill

This is my critique of this article by Gypsy King. I am responding to a few of her arguments concerning the Sonogram Bill.

1: The State cannot tell a woman what to do with her own body

This is true. But we are talking about two bodies here, two completely genetically unique bodies. The state imposes many regulations on what we can and can’t do to someone else’s body.  

2: There are legitimate reasons why people get abortions; these people should not have to go through a sonogram

Less than 10% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother, or due to rape/incest, or anything like that. The overwhelming majority of abortions are convenience abortions. If we decide that the 10% should be allowed to have abortions with no restrictions, does that mean the 90% should be allowed to as well? Should we overturn a law because there are exceptions to it? If we did that, we would have to overturn every law because there are always exceptions to every law.

3: The Sonogram law is unnecessary because women walking into an abortion clinic already know what they’re doing.

Do they really know what they’re doing? Then why do many women change their minds after seeing a sonogram? And what exactly do they see that makes them change their minds? What is your opinion about those women?

4: Your word choices

You said that having an abortion is a “traumatic” experience. If abortion is not the taking of an innocent life, why should it be “traumatic?” You also said that “Forcing doctors to give a description of what the embryo/fetus looks like and turn up the volume so they can hear the fetal heartbeat is disgraceful and unnecessary.” What about a woman hearing her child’s heartbeat is disgraceful? Would you be opposed to this same procedure if the woman was not seeking an abortion?

My critique comes down to this: Why should women not be informed about what is in their bodies? Why should they not see a sonogram? What are you afraid that they might see?

Legalizing Abortion?

Abortion is an extremely controversial issue that the government is constantly being pressed to deal with. Many people think that abortion should be legal because it is a purely religious issue. That is not true. Abortion has nothing to do with God or religion. The government should take it’s stance on abortion based on the answer to a scientific question: When does life begin? Let’s take a look at three common arguments in support of abortion.

1. A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.

This is an absolutely true statement; women should be in control of their own bodies. But a child in a woman’s body is not part of her body. A fetus is an entirely separate human being. If they were the same body, they would have the same DNA. No baby has the same DNA as its mother. Also, a good half of fetuses are male. Can you honestly say that a male fetus is part of a female body?

2. A fetus is not viable until (insert age); it is not really a baby

Most people say that a fetus is not viable, or not really a life, until it is three months old. Let’s assume for a minute that this is true. So what happens at three months to make the fetus a life? Is there some major change in development? Does the doctor sprinkle fairy dust on it? No. Nothing happens. If a fetus is not really alive at conception, then when does it become alive? When it’s big enough to see easily? When it’s born? Some people point to a particular stage in development, like hearing a heartbeat or developing a spinal cord. But there is no greater stage in development than conception. At the moment of conception, an embryo has all the genetic material it will ever have in its entire life. As soon as an egg and sperm unite, the embryo’s hair color, eye color, and all other unique characteristics are decided and they will not change. If you choose to say that a fetus is not a baby, then what is it? At what point does it become a baby?

3. Don’t impose your morals on other people

When asked what they think about abortion, most people will say something along the lines of, “I don’t like abortions, but I’m not going to stop someone else from doing it.” While this sounds like a nice thing to say, really think about what it means. What if we replace the word ‘abortion’ with ‘murder?’ “I don’t like murder, but I’m not going to stop someone else from doing it.” What if we replace it with Stealing? Cheating? Drinking and driving? Now it just sounds irrational. We have laws because we all agree that there are things we should not do, namely, things that hurt other people. These are things we agree that no one should do, because they harm someone else. If abortion is in fact the taking of an innocent life, then it is wrong for me, and wrong for you, and wrong for everyone. If abortion is really murder, then there should be rules in place to keep it from happening.