Almost a million people, most of whom were women, marched on the White House and Capital Building in Washington DC yesterday (April 26, 2004), in support of a woman’s RIGHT to CHOOSE.
One would have thought this issue had been settled once and for all in the world-famous Roe Versus Wade (January 22, 1973) verdict, concerning a woman’s right to decide whether or not to carry or abort a fetus within her.
However; the RIGHT to LIFE forces, with a strong friend (George W Bush) in the White House think otherwise.
For me, the principle of a Woman’s Right to Choose trumps all other principles. It also negates what men have to say in this circumstance, since men will never be in the position to have to make that choice for their own bodies and long term responsibilities.
The Right to Life group is also quite removed from the reality of a Woman’s Right to Choose. In perception, the descriptive names adopted by the Pro-Life Groups suggest that their antithesis is Pro-Death.
It is far more complicated than that.
Most women who choose to abort the fetus within their womb are not Pro-Death as the Pro-Lifers would have us believe. They are Pro-Choice. The choice not to bring into this world, a child who is unwanted by the mother.
Abortion is not a pleasant experience for anyone. And certainly not something any normal thinking woman would want to experience. But; having a child that is unwanted, is no less a horrible experience.
The debaters amongst the Anti-Right’s movement have used an array of credible and creative arguments for their campaign. Including: When does life begin?
To some, life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm reaches and starts to fertilize the egg. To the Catholic Church, life begins with the act of having sex. To others, it is when the fetus becomes sufficiently viable to survive outside of the womb.
To me; life begins when the child is born and takes it’s first breath. It is when the mother holds her baby and gives thanks for the biological miracle. It is when a wanted human being joins the ranks of humanity. That’s when life begins.
One of the many problems with the Anti-Abortionists, is that they have no viable argument or plan for unwanted children.
The other problem, perhaps the biggest of all, is how do the Anti-Abortionists come to decide that an unwilling woman should be obligated to a life of child care, when that woman wants just the opposite?
Then there is the forever biological and emotional transformation a woman undergoes during pregnancy. A change she carries with her for the rest of her life. Who has the right to “condemn” an unwilling woman to this obligation?
It also seems strange to me, that the people who are so “Pro-Life”, are also amongst the first to deny social assistance to women who have children, who are in dire financial need.
After all arguments are heard, for me, the answer concerning a woman’s right to choose has to be as fundamental as HER right to choose.
In most civilized countries, this debate virtually no longer exists. What is being debated instead is the RIGHT to DIE.
Yet; the RIGHT to DIE, is just as opposed by many of the same Right to Lifers. It seems to them that CHOICE is a dirty word.
And then there is the ultimate contradiction. The people who call themselves Pro-Life, generally support state sponsored death penalties.
It is the backward countries and religious fundamentalists who oppose the right to choose to die in dignity, or to have or not have a baby. It is the same group who generally oppose Gay and Lesbian marriages. Again; CHOICE seems to be a dirty word.
Yet; this group of activists are at the vanguard to defend the Constitution of The United States of America, including the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms against the government, in the event that the government violates the Constitution.
They’re also at the forefront in the defence of FREEDOM, upon which is the very bedrock foundation America is built. Yet, they are amongst the most aggressive to deny this freedom to others with whom they don’t agree, especially in circumstances which have no effect upon their own lives.
I would like it best if there were no abortions. I even defend the principle that abortions should not be encouraged in the trimester, with the exception of health concerns to the fetus and or mother.
But; whether to bring life into the world or not, must be decided only by the person who carries that life within her.
After all is said and done: it comes down to a matter of choice between the woman and herself.
No one else, including the sperm donor should have any input, much less the personally unaffected hordes who are Anti-Choice.
The right to make personal decisions is what has made America great. What the Anti-Choice movement stands for, is in many ways an affront to their own Constitution, and is in some ways fundamentally anti-American.
Howard, you will LOVE this guy: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/19/tucker-carlson-speechless-as-former-army-colonel-tears-apart-the-concept-of-white-privilege/
Comments are closed.