This was copied from a discussion I was in on Facebook. The first part was someone’s discussion they had on the topic of Abortion, then lastly I responded to this posting.
‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional.
This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’
I don't agree with these laws that they are trying to push on us, but I do believe there is a difference with these stated explanation. Aborting is a little different than using a part of you to save a life.
In aborting, which is halting a life, or some would say "killing" a life, you run into other issues. I'm definitely not opposed to abortion at certain terms of pregnancy, and where rape or incest has occurred--- there are ways and procedures to terminating the outcome in these cases without getting involved with calling this the removal/killing of a human being.
I could go on and on, but it seems as those these ridiculous laws that these men want to create is only to harm women. Where the woman is wrongfully blamed and jailed, with more jail time than the man who initiated this "problem"... It really gripes me when they close down/cut funding and march against these clinics that help women through these problems with good health care and preventive medications.
Teaching good parenting for one thing, which is obviously something these men in office no nothing about. They all need to be locked up in a facility for the criminally insane!
It's a serious psychological problem...men dealing with insecurity seems to be the real problem here...taking back that control, this is just their first step.
WE must stop them! None of us should take control over another person’s body, we simply need to love and leave people alone to live the best life they can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment