Monday, October 06, 2003

Losing our right to choose: overturning Roe vs. Wade

i wanted the Cubs to have a post all to themselves, hence the separation =)

the homily during Mass this evening mentioned -not really in passing, actually in quite some detail- the argument over abortion that has engulfed the catholic church, and now is starting to become a big issue for all women in america, really. while i understand the catholic church's position, and personally believe that i would never go for an abortion myself, i am willing to stand here and argue for a woman's right to choose. i don't think it's a contradiction for me to be able to say that at all. i refuse to believe that a woman doesn't have the right to choose what is going to happen to her body; that she is hostage, essentially, to what she doesn't want. and think about the child she brings into the world -- if it is unwanted, if it can be fed and sheltered and kept warm. the antiabortionists, as Vogue dubs them, though perhaps pro-lifers is a nicer way of putting it, are doing much better in this war of opinions: a bill banning partial-birth abortions has made its way through the House and if passed by Congress will become law. while i agree with the argument that partial-birth is a pretty horrifying and traumatic process, i can't help but feel for the pro-choice segment of the population which sees it as a slow chipping away at a woman's right to choose. there is local legislation in many states that makes it illegal to have an abortion, and there are interest groups working on making it illegal to cross state lines for the sole purpose of having an abortion based on a statute that states it is unlawful to transport a woman over state lines 'for immoral activities' - abortion, they argue, is an immoral activity. despite it clearly being targeted at pimps who are moving prostitutes around to get the best prices.

i think it is outrageous that the very person to whom Roe refers in Roe vs Wade is now fighting to have the motion overturned. while i understand that she has somehow had a miraculous change of heart in the last few years -she has 'got religion', so to speak, to me it smacks of 'well the motion has benefited me, but now i am going to work to take that benefit away from hundreds of other women'; to me the whole fight against Roe vs Wade is an introduction of religion into the affairs of the state. and to be honest, i don't like that. i disagree with the Bishop's pointing out that the First Amendment doesn't REALLY provide for the separation of church and the state. while certainly not worded as such, i believe that the accurate interpretation of the First Amendment's language is basically 'Church, keep your nose out of our legislative affairs' - and this is certainly not what is going on. especially under George W. Bush.

i'm too tired to continue with any logical arguments...i need a shower and then to sleep for a week. but i'll settle for eight hours. in the meantime, i'll go marshall up some more arguments about civil liberties and rights. goodnight, world!


Post a Comment

<< Home