The most common argument I hear from pro-choice women in response to most anything I write on the subject is, “this simply is no one’s business but the woman’s.” Even if there is a moral dimension to this, it’s up to the woman to make the ethical calculus.
That may be what pro-choicers believe — but it is not what Roe v. Wade says. Many of the comments assume that there is an inviolable Constitutional right to abortion at any time. But in the majority opinion Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “Appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.”
The fact that 84% of Americans support banning abortion in the third trimester would indicate that a large chunk even of pro-choice voters believe that while the woman’s right is sacrosanct in the earlier parts of the pregnancy, as time passes, the fetus itself begins to have rights, too.
Politically, common ground efforts should steer clear of the late term abortion debate, at least in phase one. I raise it to make a simple point: Roe v. Wade did not grant women an inviolable, universal, unfettered right to choose. So discouraging debate with the assertion that pretty much no one other than the pregnant woman has any standing to offer an opinion is not only counter-productive but against the spirit of Roe.
This post was also contributed to a new area on “Common Ground” for abortion run by RH Reality Check
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted June 19, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Steven,
This is true and you are right about Roe.
The reason pro-choice people (like me!) so strongly resist making any changes in the law is because, after our experiences with DOMA and the appalling gutting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the conservative Christians, we have no ground to trust them that any changes will be to reflect anything but their wish to oppress women totally.
It is hard to negotiate with people whose answer to everything is “our way or the highway”. Or, to shoot you dead, as the anti-woman’s-right-to-choose folks have recently taken to doing.
Personally, I find the solution most of Europe has agreed to works well.
No abortions in Germany after 12 weeks unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Before 12 weeks, the woman must convince a doctor that carrying the pregnancy to term would be harmful to her.
This gives medical professionals the room to legally terminate a pregnancy which would otherwise kill or so severely injure the woman that she might as well be dead. Coupled with the social systems we have in Europe (and which the conservative Christians fight tooth and nail), it gives a woman who wants to bring the child to term, the resources to do so.
If the anti-woman’s-right-to-choose folks really cared about life, they’d be doing everything they could to provide resources so that a young woman in trouble could manage the pregnancy. Hah! Like that will ever happen.
posted June 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Thank you Panthera, I truly agree with this statement!
“The reason pro-choice people (like me!) so strongly resist making any changes in the law is because, after our experiences with DOMA and the appalling gutting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the conservative Christians, we have no ground to trust them that any changes will be to reflect anything but their wish to oppress women totally.”
I, too, have absolutely no trust in conservative Christianity. They serve their own self- religious interests and to hell with everyone else if they don’t agree with them.
I firmly believe that IT IS the woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or seek whatever options she wishes, without exception.
Panthera makes a very valid statement about conservative Christians wanting to take rights away from others solely because they deem, whatever, to be against their beliefs and therefore, no one should have this right.
I also disagree because why should they, or anyone, for that matter, determine what rights I or anyone else should have. Why should they say, you can have this right but not this right and then what’s to stop them or any group, later down the road from saying, we changed our mind, you don’t deserve this right.
As a Wiccan, I believe, very firmly, in the thought that we are all responsible for our own actions and choices and those consequences resulting said action. I don’t need or want someone else’s religion telling me what I can or cannot have.
Also, to clear the air in case anyone is wondering. No, I don’t like the fact that abortion is sometimes used as a form of birth control, as there are plenty of methods available before getting to this point but I, unequivocally; stand on the belief that it is solely the woman’s choice in the matter. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one but other wise keep your damn religious nose out of other peoples business.
posted June 20, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Gwyddion9,
It does make one wonder, at times.
Let’s pretend, just for a moment or two, that conservative Christians actually cared about all these wee bairns.
Why, then, they’d not be holding them responsible for the decisions taken by their parents, now would they?
Right, but since they delight in seeing the kids suffer – no health insurance, abysmal education, appalling nutrition…
What? Not true? Right, that would explain the Republican opposition to expanding health insurance to include all children. Republican opposition to providing proper nutrition to all children.
Republican’s stripping the school systems of funds…and all the conservative Christians out there screaming out their hatred for women, gays and transgender because we dare to be ourselves.
So, all you conservative Christians…how, exactly, does punishing the child through neglect line up with your oh-so-profoundly held “Christian” beliefs on respecting all life?
posted June 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Panthera & Gwyydion9:
Well spoken, both of you. I can’t add to the well thought out posts you both have posted. Thank you.