This is my abortion post: feel free to not read.
If you believe a fetus is merely a part of a womans body and, therefore, hers to govern, pierce, tattoo and abort, then there is little doubt that she should have total agency in her decision to do so.
If you believe that a fetus has some intrinsic moral worth (as a child of God or some such), then you probably want to give this fetus, this child, some protection because it has no voice with which it might defend itself. I suspect that the anti-choice crowd finds similar vindication in activism to Amnesty and PETA, both of which purport to lend a voice to the downtrodden and silenced.
Some of us are somewhere in between. I, for instance, think all women should have access to prenatal healthcare, but it isnt only for the mothers that I wish it. While I think it very unfortunate that abortion is at times used by irresponsible, mostly privileged women as a contraceptive, I certainly cannot continence advocating a policy that would move choice from the individual woman to some governing bureaucracy (of men) and in reality, move the choice from a safe clinic to a back alley.
Im frustrated with the issue for several reasons:
1.) I believe abortion is an epiphenomenon to deeper issues (why are women still ashamed to be pregnant? Why cant we as a society support women with sufficient childcare and healthcare such that carrying a child to term need not be a life-sacrifice?)
2.) I believe abortion marginalizes otherwise socially-progressive voters and destroys a potentially strong Christian Left.
3.) Our current pro-choice strategy relies upon the protections of the least-democratic branch of our government.
Finally, on the rights of men: of course we cannot allow a husband, father or boyfriend to control a womans right to choose, but we can give them equal rights. Therefore, I again propose that a woman has a right to an abortion without her partners consent, but that both the father and the mother can decide that the child is to be put up for adoption against the other parents wishes. If either parent believes the newborn child will not be cared for properly, the other parent cannot say otherwise. If we wont allow the state to drive its jurisdiction into the bodies of its female citizens (and we shouldnt), then equality dictates that the male partner have equal say over the newborns care. Children are not property, nor are they pieces of our bodies. I certainly think that the child-rearing capacities of a single mother or father usurps the moral relevance of any maternal or paternal bond.
If you believe a fetus is merely a part of a womans body and, therefore, hers to govern, pierce, tattoo and abort, then there is little doubt that she should have total agency in her decision to do so.
If you believe that a fetus has some intrinsic moral worth (as a child of God or some such), then you probably want to give this fetus, this child, some protection because it has no voice with which it might defend itself. I suspect that the anti-choice crowd finds similar vindication in activism to Amnesty and PETA, both of which purport to lend a voice to the downtrodden and silenced.
Some of us are somewhere in between. I, for instance, think all women should have access to prenatal healthcare, but it isnt only for the mothers that I wish it. While I think it very unfortunate that abortion is at times used by irresponsible, mostly privileged women as a contraceptive, I certainly cannot continence advocating a policy that would move choice from the individual woman to some governing bureaucracy (of men) and in reality, move the choice from a safe clinic to a back alley.
Im frustrated with the issue for several reasons:
1.) I believe abortion is an epiphenomenon to deeper issues (why are women still ashamed to be pregnant? Why cant we as a society support women with sufficient childcare and healthcare such that carrying a child to term need not be a life-sacrifice?)
2.) I believe abortion marginalizes otherwise socially-progressive voters and destroys a potentially strong Christian Left.
3.) Our current pro-choice strategy relies upon the protections of the least-democratic branch of our government.
Finally, on the rights of men: of course we cannot allow a husband, father or boyfriend to control a womans right to choose, but we can give them equal rights. Therefore, I again propose that a woman has a right to an abortion without her partners consent, but that both the father and the mother can decide that the child is to be put up for adoption against the other parents wishes. If either parent believes the newborn child will not be cared for properly, the other parent cannot say otherwise. If we wont allow the state to drive its jurisdiction into the bodies of its female citizens (and we shouldnt), then equality dictates that the male partner have equal say over the newborns care. Children are not property, nor are they pieces of our bodies. I certainly think that the child-rearing capacities of a single mother or father usurps the moral relevance of any maternal or paternal bond.
argon:
It's true that privilaged women have a greater access to child care and safe abortions, but i think it is unfair to say that it is sometimes used as contraception by irresponsible privaleged women. I see that you have a well thought out opinion on the subject, and you have many valid points, but i do think that you should be careful to steer clear of the irresponsible contraceptive bit. I feel it can be very offensive and insensitive even though it is prefaced with the qualifier "sometimes." Im sure it was not your intent to offend or insult; it's just my feelings on the subject.
asunder:
Sorry bout that argon. That sentence describes the abortions that piss me off. They do exist. Even so, my apologies for the offense. I simply mean to say that when I fight for reproductive rights, it isn't these women for whom I am fighting. I fight for the downtrodden, the oppressed, those who fear dire consequences under the tyranny of a misogynist society should their pregnancy even be known.