Academics Humanities Social Sciences Sciences Theology Academic Integration Faculty Offices Departments Current Issues Publications Conferences/Events Apologetics Ministry Tools Bible Studies What's New Special Interest Past Features Other Sites Help LU About LU Privacy Policy Link to LU Feedback Navigation Site Map Site Index Advanced Search Browsing Help LU Home LU Updates Receive LU-Announce

The Public Policy of Casey v. Planned Parenthood By Michael G. Smith Conclusion   [Previous | Contents] The abortion controversy has raged on for over twenty years and shows no signs of subsiding. The abortion controversy continues because there are compelling public policy reasons for ending legal abortion, such as abortion is murder, is inconsistent with feminism, supports the sexual revolution, and encourages other violence. It has been said that the goal of family policy is the well-being of the family.{155} Whether the family is an intact nuclear family or a single mother, the well-being of the family can reasonably be construed to mean the antithesis of what abortion brings to a family. Abortion brings death, a reversal of feminism, further violence, and the sexual revolution to the family. Few would argue these promote the well-being of the family. Abortion opposes the best interests of the family. No problem we have in society is greater than the problem we create when we kill innocent unborn human life. The solution to the problem of legal abortion is to live and let the children live, by outlawing abortion. Endnotes {155}Shirley L Zimmerman, Understanding Family Policy 8 (2d ed. 1995). [Previous | Contents] Copyright © 1997 by Michael G. Smith. All rights reserved. Michael G. Smith is team leader of an object-oriented internet development project at Banc One Services Corporation in Columbus, OH. He can be contacted at obeng@softwarelaw.com . Email this to a friend copyright © 1995-2008 Leadership U. All rights reserved. Updated: 13 July 2002