Abortion and The Right to Choose
Since there seemed to be such interest generated in yesterday's post regarding a pharmacist and h/h right to refuse to dispense birth control, I thought today would be devoted to the issue regarding women's right to choice and her body, also known as the abortion issue. I have edited this question for clarity.
Many people have strong, sometimes passionate feelings, about whether a woman should be entitled to obtain an abortion . We already have federal and state laws that are in place on the issue and many people are clearly familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. This landmark case was decided in 1973 and the majority opinion was written by Justice Blackmun. The case is primarily known for deciding the issue of state involvement regarding the termination of a woman's pregnancy during the second trimester of pregnancy. Challenging access to abortion is not new, and this landmark case does not give a woman an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy nor does it give states the absolute right to make this decision at every stage, and allows women the right to make the choice during the first trimester of her pregnancy. Please read Row v. Wade for yourself to understand the significance and history of this important case. It can be found at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ (this is an abridged version. For the actual case see 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Here is the question for the day: What is your personal opinion on a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion? When answering these questions, please consider the following: Should a women's right to choose the stage upon which to terminate her pregnancy stay the same as set forth in Roe v. Wade ? If not, should the issue be decided by federal law or remain in place as decided by state law? Should our government have an absolute right to tell a woman that she cannot make a choice regarding the termination of her pregnancy as set forth by law?How is your opinion influenced by religion or morality, if at all?
This is a sensitive subject: Please be kind, civil and gentle in your discussion.
Thank you for your minds.
Many people have strong, sometimes passionate feelings, about whether a woman should be entitled to obtain an abortion . We already have federal and state laws that are in place on the issue and many people are clearly familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. This landmark case was decided in 1973 and the majority opinion was written by Justice Blackmun. The case is primarily known for deciding the issue of state involvement regarding the termination of a woman's pregnancy during the second trimester of pregnancy. Challenging access to abortion is not new, and this landmark case does not give a woman an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy nor does it give states the absolute right to make this decision at every stage, and allows women the right to make the choice during the first trimester of her pregnancy. Please read Row v. Wade for yourself to understand the significance and history of this important case. It can be found at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ (this is an abridged version. For the actual case see 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Here is the question for the day: What is your personal opinion on a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion? When answering these questions, please consider the following: Should a women's right to choose the stage upon which to terminate her pregnancy stay the same as set forth in Roe v. Wade ? If not, should the issue be decided by federal law or remain in place as decided by state law? Should our government have an absolute right to tell a woman that she cannot make a choice regarding the termination of her pregnancy as set forth by law?How is your opinion influenced by religion or morality, if at all?
This is a sensitive subject: Please be kind, civil and gentle in your discussion.
Thank you for your minds.
15 Comments:
Barbara,
You have a bunch of questions here. I will go through the one by one.
Should women's right to choose the stage upon which to terminate her pregnancy stay the same as set forth in Roe v. Wade ?
I am not sure what you are asking here.
If not, should the issue be decided by federal law or remain in place as decided by state law?
The decision is hers alone. If she *chooses* she can consult others such as doctors, friends, family, father of baby.
Should our government have an absolute right to tell a woman that she cannot make a choice regarding the termination of her pregnancy as set forth by law?
No. Medical decisions are between doctor and patient, not gov't official and patient.
Whether or not to become a parent is the single more important decision people make. Gov't has no right to interfer in that decision making process. Once a persyn decides to become a parent and they jeapordize the well being of said child/ren, then gov't may become involved in protecting that child/ren from further harm from its parents.
Lastly, what is your own opinion on a woman's right to choose?
Forced parenthood is slavery. Period.
Having an unwanted/unplanned/unintended/unprepared child/ren harms the child/ren more than any other act in its life.
There is enough birth control to go around and prevent the above types of pregnancies, if only gov't would stay out of the bedroom and allow people access to such.
Neglected child/ren, unwanted children are taught how not to love and how to skirt emotional responsiblity. This is passed from generation to generation thus creating the ills of the world, as far as I'm concerned. Two people who wish to have a baby should have all the emotional, economic, and social resources available to them to allow them to be successful parents with well adjusted children.
There are things about abortions that the right to life side are either not aware of, or plain ignoring.
1. I once saw a sticker that said "1 out of 3 babies die by choice". Really? 33% of women that get knocked up have an abortion? Is this a made up number, and if not where did it come from?
2. Many clinics call "abortion" any procedure involving the scraping of the uterus wall. Notice how the word pregnant is not in that defination. So not ALL abortions end a pregnancy. That 33% figure probably assumes that all abortions end life.
3. How many right to life people are standing in line to adopt all the unwanted babies? Yea, if the baby is healthy and white there is a huge demand. But what if the baby is born addicted to crack and/or not exactly white? I know some people that went to Russia to adopt a baby. Were there no babies here?
4. The right to life side, generally speaking, are opposed to family health services, and other forms of wellfare. Women without health insurance still need pre-natal care. Who will pay for it? Hummmm...
If you ask me, the pro-life side is not looking at the whole picture. They are only looking at photos of infants and screaming murder. And how many right-to-life people support other forms of death?
I feel that this is an issue that people need to decide for themselvs. Morality is all about judgement calls. Politics needs to stay out of the doctors office.
Finally, the right to life side position is "stop abortion because it is contrary to my religous beliefs". The key words being STOP and MY. The choice side is saying "let people make up their own mind". The key words being LET and THEIR. The choice side is not demanding everyone abort.
I believe abortion is a woman's right. I suspect that if men were able to become pregnant this wouldn't be such a huge issue. Abortion is something that women are able to control (although many people are intent on chipping away at that right). I think our culture has a problem with that. In what other part of life does a woman get to make such a huge decision on her own?
M. Brandon, you said:
"I respect a woman's right to choose, but I also feel that abortion could turn into an "easy out" for irresponsible behavior (unsafe sex, rampant promiscuity)."
With all due respect (and I really don't mean to pick on you personally), give me a break. Do you think most women are really that stupid? I am an average 27-year-old single woman, and I have never said to myself, "No need to be cautious, I can always get an abortion." That logic just seems completely flawed and I find it offensive that people think women would think that way. Also, you're bringing morality into it with your fear of "rampant promiscuity." I think it was Winterwheat who said yesterday that if a woman wants to use birth control pills because she has sex with 8 different men each day, that's her business. I think the same thing goes for abortion. I can understand why people are against abortion if they think it's "murder" (not that I agree with them), but I feel that a lot of times people are against it because they think "loose women" should have to "pay" for their behavior.
I agree with Iguana and Doug, which is why I don't use the term "pro-life" to define people who are anti-choice.
I agree with the above statements.
As for "casual" abortions - I have a hard time believing that there are large numbers of women using abortion as a method of birth control. I've known women who got pregnant despite using birth control (for example, if you are on medication for colds/flu, it can make b.c. useless).
Every woman's situation is unique to her and only she can decide for herself.
Good lord, woman, can we switch back to penises tomorrow? My blood pressure has only just come back down to normal since yesterday's birth-control-pills debate. :-)
Given my position there it should be obvious that I support a woman's right to choose. But I have to share something: I have infinitely more respect for anti-choice people who take the position that any abortion at any time for any reason should be illegal, than those who think it should be legal only for women who are raped. The latter perspective strikes me as incredibly judgmental and moralistic, a sort of "you play, you pay" mentality that's stupid to the extreme.
Shit, there goes my blood pressure again...
I believe first and foremost that sex ed needs to incorporate strong teaching of abstinence as a real choice and the powerful consequences of sex should be taught: pregnancy, diseases, emotional
Also, I believe in providing condoms freely for those youth who choose to engage in sex. This is where I differ with some conservatives. I think preventing unwanted pregancies should be a priority.
I don't believe that abortion is a good or right choice. I think that those who advocate it need to make a clear choice. If it's just about a women's right to choose, then she should be able to choose aborting her baby at any time during the pregnancy. Why should the first trimester be any different than the last, if indeed it is just a thing in there and not a viable person worth protecting?
I am not a hateful person with anger and vitriol towards those who are pro-choice. This issue is highly volatile and emotional. I am sensitive towards people's feelings about this.
I firmly believe that life begins at conception, so I firmly believe it should be protected from conception on. I would never want legislation that would force women back to using a hanger on themselves, but I think that through education and rational laws, the number of abortions could be drastically reduced. I would see this as a great success even if there still were a small amount of legal abortions performed.
Doug, Allen, Jake and I have discussed this quite a bit at
thethornblog.blogspot.com
and
cyberpols.blogspot.com
We have come to some consensus on some things. It is not impossible for libs and conservs to make compromises, and I wish that would happen on a national scale.
That's all I will say here since I've discussed this a lot elsewhere.
I'm with winterwheat! This topic is so touchy for me that I can barely respond. I'm very pro-choice.
And I agree that it's more consistent when pro-life people are against ALL abortions. If they think it's murder, then it's murder even if there was a rape. (I know a couple of people who know that they are the product of a rape. If they are killed, that's murder, right?!?) ALSO, pro-lifers are much more consistent -- and MUCH more sympathetic to me personally -- when they are vehemently anti-death penalty and anti-war.
Such well thought out, and reasoned comments.
Let me try to repond:
Booth: all people are welcome to comment on the blog, regardless of sex, race, religion, or any other labels. Good to see you here.
I understand this contradiction, as I put it between lives in being and lives that exist as both Doug and Iguana have pointed out. Point of fact, I devoted an enitre blog entry to this very subject, and how hypocritical it can be.
For myself, I am pro-choice. I think when the US Supreme Court decided ROE V. WADE, there were many questions about state v. federal law looming in the background (which provided the basis for this important decision.)
That being said, I fundamentally believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have a child or not within the framework of the law as set forth in ROE V. Wade.
State involvement into this issue, which ironically, is what the conservative pro-life camp wants, sort of a contradiction in my humble opinion (want states involved in some stuff and not others) should be minimilized completely. That being said, those individuals who see this as a pro-life rather than choice issue, I respect your opinions as well. Thankfully, we now live in a country where we are free to make these decisions. Any more chisseling away at these rights will mean that the government makes them for us, which is something that is not favored by me.
Forgot to add for WINTERWHEAT:
Penises are what got women into this predictiment to begin with, but I promise we can talk about something less stressful. How about fragrances? Just for you, K! Actually, I need the respite as well.
Jamie Dawn -- you do a great job articulating your views with clarity and reason, especially as the minority voice in a sea of pro-choice voices. :-)
I just wanted to add something that you might not have been aware of. Not everyone who supports abortion rights sees the fetus as a thing and not a person. There is one pro-choice argument that actually rests on the assumption that the fetus IS a full-blown person, from Day 1.
To simplify it drastically, it goes something like this: No other person has the right to make your body their own life-support system, EVEN if they ended up needing your body for life support through no fault of their own.
You can read more of this argument (including a funny analogy about a man who falls through your OPEN window--you weren't "wearing" a screen--and refuses to leave your house; are you obliged to house him for the next 9 months?), along with various arguments on the other side, in a great book called The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion. It's a collection of logical arguments for and against legalized abortion. I had to read it in college as part of a logic class. The point was for us to see how people from both sides have constructed their arguments so we could learn more about logical argumentation. It was my favorite class in college! I recommend the book for those who are simply interested in the debate and how pro and con arguments have been constructed, regardless of their own views. Argumentation-and-debate geeks would love it.
I'm late today in checking my favorite blogs.
I have to put in my two-cents worth here. I'm so pro-choice that I used to escort for a clinic that helped women who had problem pregnancies. We had to escort the girls and women because protesters show up and try to stop them from having an abortion.
If a woman cannot be trusted to make this most important discision about whether or not to have a baby, how can she be trusted to raise a baby?
i am pro-choice although i've never felt i myself could have an abortion (i was never able to imagine a scenario in which i was not able to bring up the child)
my view is essentially pragmatic: we know it is medically/technically possible to terminate a pregnancy and some people - for a whole host of different reasons - will want to do this
if you re-criminalise it, you are going to be sending these women into backstreet clinics which will be putting even more lives at risk
as for the time limit, i think this needs to be kept under review as technology moves on (e.g. as fetal anomalies can be detected earlier and earlier in the pregnancy - this is the main reason for late term abortions, which, admittedly, are very much in the minority)
Hi there,
My god...you go for the BIG debates..!!!
Of course abortion should be legal...and thank god it is.
Women from the dawn of time have attempted to get rid of unwanted pregnacies, and many have died in the attempt.
I have never met anyone who thought that abortion was a means of birth control...women who go down the route of abortion do a lot of soul searching in the process...and most of them have a small dark place inside their own head that stays with them for the rest of their life...a small room where it hurts them too much to enter.
No woman takes abotion lightly...but they all have reasons why it was necessary.
The moral brigade should take it on board that abortions are necessary.
Just a thought here...
If pro-choice folks and homosexuals had their way, they would all be extinct within a generation.
There is something to be said for families and heterosexuality.
Thank goodness all of your mothers decided not to have "her uterine walls scraped" while you were dwelling there for 9 months.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home