www.JohnForUSSenate.com
Abortion -- alternative options

by John McAlister
Candidate US Senate

The issue of abortion is very contentious and people, whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent or other, are split right down the middle on this issue. I can understand the arguments on both sides.

There are those who say a person is a human being at conception and that the human embryo is a human life worthy of the protection of the law. It is true that at six weeks a human embryo has brain waves that can be measured with an electroencephalogram.

However, others believe that human beings are defined essentially by their minds. Ronald Bailey in a December/99 Reason article entitled "Petri Dish Politics" reported that "what makes us distinct and unique is not our genes but our brains and the minds they contain." It asks the question what is "you?" Is it DNA and genes or a six week old undeveloped brain organ?

From the same article he quotes Princeton biologist Lee Silver as saying, "The human mind, of course, is a dynamic entity, but genes are static." Bailey reports that a person's genes provide the instructions for building his or her brain, and the mind which comes out of that brain can respond to the environment. "Unlike genes, a mind can change. The human mind is much more than the genes that brought it into existence," concludes Silver.

There have been those who were "Pro Life" until they found they were pregnant and then changed their minds. There have been those who were "Pro Abortion" until they got pregnant and couldn't go through with an abortion. How can government make this decision for people when the pregnant woman herself is not always sure?

I am a candidate for the federal office of U.S. Senate and I would like to see a federal government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I think the federal government, despite Roe v Wade, has no constitutional right to tell the states what they should or should not be doing in regard to this issue.

The idea behind federalism is that according to the Tenth Amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, there should be no federal laws telling the states what to do on this issue. Nor should the federal government have any role or involvement in the matter of abortion. Certainly the federal government should not be taking money, in the form of taxes, from people who are opposed to abortion to pay for abortions or encourage abortions.

Also, there should be no federal laws that hinder state laws in regards to adoption, i.e., American Indian children or African American children by adoptive parents of another race.

I agree with Harry Browne that "abortion is wrong -- very wrong. An unfortunate fact of life is that there always will be abortions, just as there always will be people who misuse drugs, no matter what the laws are.

The only practical solution to either problem is a program of education and persuasion -- undertaken by people, not government. I applaud the dedication and efforts of those who work so hard to dissuade young women from rushing into abortions, who arrange adoptions for pregnant women, and who spend their own money on advertising that celebrates the lives of children who weren't aborted."

Ultimately it is an issue that has to be solved educationally, culturally and religiously rather than legislativly. It is in that spirit that I have linked to my campaign website, www.JohnForUSSenate.com, many websites that educate and offer alternatives to abortion.