I find this appalling
News story about women as second class citizens
Actually, it's an article about the Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortions which does not have an amendment allowing for abortion to preserve the health of the mother. Women as incubators.
This kind of legislation seems to be pushed through by holier-than-thou patriarchal nimrods who believe that pregnant women and their fetuses need to be protected from bizarre non-maternal instincts. Because, truly, there can never be a legitimate reason to kill babies, can there?
Do they really believe that women who have been carrying a child for six months or more are going to take the decision to terminate that life so lightly? I can't imagine the pain that has to go into that choice.
(Sorry if this seems stilted... what I really want to be writing involves a lot of profanity, and that would probably just detract from the message.)
Why do women lose rights to make decisions about their lives when they become pregnant? Why do other people think that they have the right to decide ANYTHING in a stranger's life?
Would these same people welcome a stranger who told them that they were not allowed to go to church anymore because some religions caused people to be violent in the name of their god? (Of course not, because those other religions are false, and theirs is true and good.)
Or is this all part of the War on Terror? Thems hates us for our freedomses... so we'll take away those freedoms (especially from the womenfolk) to solve the problem.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
5 comments:
There are other ways besides "intact dilation and extraction" to terminate a pregnancy in the later months. I understand that this method has lost much support lately even within the medical community and is used very infrequently (0.17% of all abortions & only 15% of all late-term abortions according to wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction).
Furthermore (from the article you linked) "The high court on Wednesday upheld the ban except in cases where the woman’s life might be in danger."
I'd imagine between the two options (IDX for emergencies and other options for non-emergency situations), the mother's health is still well-protected.
I don't think you and I should discuss this Devan. We will never agree, and it will only damage the respect we hold for each other.
The point is that they are taking the decision away from the mother and her doctor and putting it in the hands of the government.
This is unacceptable to me.
Read also the dissent by Ginsberg.
Also... wikipedia as an authoritative source?
AND, furthermore (from the article I linked) LIFE is not HEALTH.
Okay... as I said, I don't think I should continue this discussion because I'm 1) really pissed and 2) high on sinus meds
I figured I was treading on thin ice anyway. I don't hold a strong opinion either way on this issue, and am frequently glad that the responsibility for determining legal procedure (or whether or not to actually terminate a pregnancy) lies in other places than at my feet.
Just figured I'd raise some issues regarding the matter. I tend to use wikipedia as a quick way to get a decent idea about a subject. I understand it's hardly a pinacle of journalistic integrity, but it is useful, and the information I quoted seemed to agree with the information I read in the article you linked.
Get well soon, Kate!
Post a Comment