March 23, 2012

Strange Things. Scary Things.



A while back I posted about abortion. I was voicing support, from a liberal perspective, for the proposed requirement for women seeking abortions to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to the procedure. In the comments beneath that post one reader told me:
"You give them an inch and they will take a mile. Starting down the personhood path will lead to things you don't like but it will be too late to turn back the clock."
I'll be honest. At the time I thought the comment was a bit alarmist. It turned out to be some kind of crazy accurate prediction.


Since I wrote that post the following news items have surfaced:

  • An Arizona lawmaker suggested women be required to watch an abortion prior to receiving one.
  • An Alaska lawmaker suggested the father be required to give permission for an abortion.
  • An Idaho lawmaker suggested that physicians probe more deeply when a woman comes in with a "rape issue" (pregnancy resulting from rape) to determine if she's telling the truth or if the pregnancy is actually the result of normal marital relations.
  • The Arizona Senate passed a bill protecting physicians who choose not to disclose fetal medical conditions which may cause the pregnant woman to consider an abortion. 
AZ Rep. Terri Proud
NO!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

When I wrote my post I stupidly assumed that we were talking about legislation written with sensitivity and forethought. I assumed women who were pregnant from non-consensual sex would not be part of the bargain.

I stand by my original post, but I would rather 10,000 unnecessary abortions be performed than watch our rights and our dignity be stripped away.

Conservative women, I implore you - we are looking at more of the same under a Romney or Santorum administration. Please consider your gender when heading to the polls. I'm not even suggesting you change sides, but find a more reasonable candidate! I know you are angry and feel the Democratic White House has caused more harm than good, but if you over correct and elect someone who does not support basic civil liberties we may be thrown back into the last century.     -Kim

3 comments:

  1. WOW!! Just WOW!

    *Who on earth thinks that watching an abortion prior to receiving one, is going to make those whom are pregnant through abuse/rape/being underage/due to an affair/risk of severe chastisement etc, is going to be a deterrent?

    *And if there is no father, what then? Will those in authourity then make the decision for her on the principle that she is female and incapable of making a rational decision?

    *As someone who has been a victim of rape, I find this to be the most distasteful. Yes there are those who have lied about becoming pregnant through rape but to question every case? As if the 'real' victim doesn't feel dirty, ashamed and worthless as it is.

    *And thus we bring into the world a child who may suffer pain, have poor quality of life, or who may die anyway as a result of their condition.

    All this is going to do, is bring back the old 'back street' abortion, for those desperate enough to seek it.

    So glad that this issue hasn't made it's way to the British shores...yet!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The basic issue always comes back to this: when is the baby a person? I think we all agree that killing a person is not allowed.

    Is it ok to kill a newborn baby? No? What about one with disabilities, like down syndrome? Still no? But it's ok to kill the baby before it's born right? I mean, except if it's viable. My friend just had a 23 week set of triplets. She lost two. One is thriving at 6 months. So obviously, it's possible now to sustain life for a 23 week old fetus/baby/etc. Ok, so we draw the line at 20 weeks? So a few WEEKS makes a difference for whether it's ok to kill another human? What if technology gets better? Say we achieve the ability to sustain life earlier? Do we change the rules again? Is that really what we want our morale code to be based on?

    The question isn't about women's rights as much as we'd all like to believe. The real question is when is it ok to end a developing life? We have basically created a belief system that says that it's ok to end a baby's life based on the mother's wants. But as Dr. Suess said, "A person's a person, no matter how small." So either murdering a baby is ok, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it's never ok, no matter if they are just conceived or if they are thriving 6 month olds.

    I'd add that if you think that a 12 week old baby isn't someone important, talk to a mom who lost her child to miscarriage that early. That child mattered to his/her Mom and Dad. Human life matters. It's not a matter of women's rights, it's a matter of human rights. These tiny little people should have rights too, even if they can't speak up and talk for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sara - Agreed. If you check out the original post that's pretty much verbatim what I had to say about it.

    Lots of love and good wishes to your friend with the triplets. Glad about the sweet little survivor but no parent wants to contemplate such a loss. :-/

    -Kim

    ReplyDelete

All opinions welcome, but play nice or be deleted.