The odd political issue rant...
Oct. 23rd, 2003 09:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
missroserose...after all, it wouldn't be a proper blog without one, would it? You have been warned. No, scratch that, you are going to be warned:
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WARNING: The following views have been scientifically tested and found to be extremely liberal. Continuing to read this entry may cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and SS members to show up at your door for violating family values. Free speech? What free speech?
There, now that that's over...the topic today is the new "partial-birth" abortion ban, and the attitudes of those who are proponents. Let's start with some quotes, shall we?
"Today we have reached a significant victory as we continue to build a more compassionate society and a culture that values every human life." --Sen. Rick Santorum, the bill's sponsor, quoted in Yahoo! News on October 22nd.
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a heart surgeon, said the ban could save the lives of thousands of soon-to-be-born babies." --Also from Yahoo News, October 22nd.
While I'm not opposing the fact that we should value human life, this argument is blatantly hypocritical. The bill contains no provision for emergency procedure in the case of endangerment of the mother's life, which is why President Clinton refused twice to sign it into law. Who's to say that the life of an unborn child is any more or less valuable than that of the mother who ideally would provide for the child? If our culture truly "values every human life," why aren't we allowing the woman the right to choose life as well?
As for my own personal feelings on the subject, well...it's a difficult issue, obviously. I've never thought of abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, as something morally right, but I also very strongly believe in a woman's right to choose - pregnancy discrimination has become a rising issue in the U.S., and there are far too many women who are in no financial situation to even go through the physical problems associated with a pregnancy, let alone support the child. While I agree that abortion should not be used as the one-and-only form of birth control, in emergencies it should be available to any woman who needs it, no matter how far along she is.
I also have problems with the "value every life" argument because, well, let's face it...the world is overcrowded. I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* value human life, but if we insist on making women, often with limited financial means, carry unwanted children, it's going to do absolutely nothing to help our population problem. This reason is also part of why I support gay marriage, contraceptives, and masturbation - it's a form of population control. And, quite frankly, we need all the help we can get in that department.
(I realize that the above paragraph is going to raise a few eyebrows and more than a few hackles. Yes, I know it sounds callous, but it often seems that half our problems with population have to do with our placing value on human life, and producing more human life, over everything else. It may be evolutionarily ingrained {ha! Now I've pissed off the creationists as well!} but it's become anti-survivalist. Is there some way we can balance our intrinsic instinct to reproduce as quickly as possible with our ever-decreasing food and energy supply without sounding callous?)
While the bill to ban partial-birth abortion is understandable in its humanistic values, I simply can't bring myself to support it, not as it is, and definitely not if it leads to further anti-abortion laws. It should be the woman's choice, not the government's, and our world is in no shape to support more life, especially if it is unwanted. She is the one who has to live with the financial and moral repercussions of her choice, whatever it is; therefore, let her be the one to make it.
@->--Rose
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WARNING: The following views have been scientifically tested and found to be extremely liberal. Continuing to read this entry may cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and SS members to show up at your door for violating family values. Free speech? What free speech?
There, now that that's over...the topic today is the new "partial-birth" abortion ban, and the attitudes of those who are proponents. Let's start with some quotes, shall we?
"Today we have reached a significant victory as we continue to build a more compassionate society and a culture that values every human life." --Sen. Rick Santorum, the bill's sponsor, quoted in Yahoo! News on October 22nd.
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a heart surgeon, said the ban could save the lives of thousands of soon-to-be-born babies." --Also from Yahoo News, October 22nd.
While I'm not opposing the fact that we should value human life, this argument is blatantly hypocritical. The bill contains no provision for emergency procedure in the case of endangerment of the mother's life, which is why President Clinton refused twice to sign it into law. Who's to say that the life of an unborn child is any more or less valuable than that of the mother who ideally would provide for the child? If our culture truly "values every human life," why aren't we allowing the woman the right to choose life as well?
As for my own personal feelings on the subject, well...it's a difficult issue, obviously. I've never thought of abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, as something morally right, but I also very strongly believe in a woman's right to choose - pregnancy discrimination has become a rising issue in the U.S., and there are far too many women who are in no financial situation to even go through the physical problems associated with a pregnancy, let alone support the child. While I agree that abortion should not be used as the one-and-only form of birth control, in emergencies it should be available to any woman who needs it, no matter how far along she is.
I also have problems with the "value every life" argument because, well, let's face it...the world is overcrowded. I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* value human life, but if we insist on making women, often with limited financial means, carry unwanted children, it's going to do absolutely nothing to help our population problem. This reason is also part of why I support gay marriage, contraceptives, and masturbation - it's a form of population control. And, quite frankly, we need all the help we can get in that department.
(I realize that the above paragraph is going to raise a few eyebrows and more than a few hackles. Yes, I know it sounds callous, but it often seems that half our problems with population have to do with our placing value on human life, and producing more human life, over everything else. It may be evolutionarily ingrained {ha! Now I've pissed off the creationists as well!} but it's become anti-survivalist. Is there some way we can balance our intrinsic instinct to reproduce as quickly as possible with our ever-decreasing food and energy supply without sounding callous?)
While the bill to ban partial-birth abortion is understandable in its humanistic values, I simply can't bring myself to support it, not as it is, and definitely not if it leads to further anti-abortion laws. It should be the woman's choice, not the government's, and our world is in no shape to support more life, especially if it is unwanted. She is the one who has to live with the financial and moral repercussions of her choice, whatever it is; therefore, let her be the one to make it.
@->--Rose
