I think I need to clarify and redirect my comments some
comments about a women’s right to choose. Abortion is not an issue in and of
itself for me. Personally I think termination of pregnancy should be a last
resort taken very seriously. I believe that while no woman should ever be
forced to have an abortion, no woman should be denied access to the procedure
either. Whether to terminate or not should be, in my view, entirely up to the
woman involved. So what about the man? Which man is that? The rapist? The
woman’s father? Her brother? The drunken frat boys? None of them should have
any say at all. There are times when consensual sex leads to pregnancy and
there may be legitimate dispute about “keeping the baby”. If the father is
willing to take over 100% of the care and support of the baby and leave the
woman free to move on, then there could be a case for carrying to term. This is
a problematic area that I agree has no easy answers. Still, I come down on the
side of the woman and her absolute right to control her own body. And the
rights of the embryo/fetus? None that I can see. Life begins at conception. Or
does it? Isn’t an egg alive? Aren’t sperms alive? Of course they are. In many
cultures both past and present babies are considered for life or death based on
circumstances. They have no natural right to live. They have value or not, and
on that basis are kept or discarded.
No, the issue isn’t abortion. The issue for me is control or
lack thereof. Laws that require people to have medical procedures against their
will have mostly been abandoned. Forced sterilizations of “undesirables” are
mostly gone. So why should there be laws that criminalize voluntary procedures?
Where is the constitutional basis for such laws? Well, one party wants to put
the concept of “personhood” which by their reckoning begins at conception, into
the Constitution. Then laws against abortion would be “legal”, and women would
lose the right to choose. The RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The basis of such an amendment
is biblical. It defines life as “god given” where there is no reason at all to
believe that it is, in fact, anything other than natural.
So it boils down to this in my view: Laws that proscribe
behavior based on the sanctity of life are in fact religious laws. And they are
laws of convenience. “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Did I get that right? Kill what, or
who and under what circumstances? Not kill animals? Nonsense. Not kill in war
or time of threat? Nonsense. Not kill in punishment? Nonsense. Not kill for
mercy? Nonsense. Laws of convenience. The same legislators who want to pass
‘Thou Shalt Not Kill the Unborn” want to kill enemies, and criminals and
animals. Many of the very same legislators who want to limit the rights of a
woman to control her own body also want government out of their businesses, out
of their taxes and out of the way of “progress”. What is going on here anyway? You
mean it is all right to pour millions of gallons of poisons into rivers and
lakes, and all right to pollute the air, and all right to “frack” the ground
without concern for the water supply but is not all right for a woman to
control her own reproductive functions? Nonsense.
And yes, a lot of women want to control the lives of other
women by passing restrictive (religious) laws on the control of their bodies.
So what? That doesn’t make it right, does it? The other day the Taliban
beheaded 17 people for dancing. Dancing offended their concept of their
religion so they killed the dancers. Ordinary people having a good time at a
private party. That is what happens when religion runs amok. Passing laws based
on any religion is the beginning of the end of real freedom. Our founding
fathers had it right: Keep Religion Out Of Government and Governance. Still a
good idea today. Or, you can move to Saudi Arabia were religion trumps everything.
Image: http://stocklogos.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/logo_preview/logos/image/clarify_2.png
2 comments:
very well said
Thanks Z.
Post a Comment