Blog for Choice

Blog for Choice Day - January 22, 2007
It’s the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and it irks me, no end, that there are still people out there who are seeking to eliminate access to abortions. I’m a mother of two girls but my pro-choice stance isn’t so much out of fear on their behalf as from outrage that, in a western society that claims to value free choice and liberty, those same rights become immediately disposable when applied to a woman’s body and issues consequent of sexuality. A fetus is not a person. That woman who wants an abortion? Sure is.

3 Responses to “Blog for Choice”

  1. Gareth Says:

    I think that you have skirted around the aspect of the dispute that irks me: not the claims of choice and liberty or the access to rights concerning a person.

    It’s the lack of respect each side has for the other’s opinions about the moral, legal and ethical status of a foetus.

    In a society that values free choice and liberty, that respects diversity and protects self-determinism, an abject rejection of the fundamental principles of a different point of view is an attack on the fundamental freedom itself.

    The two sides are not attacking what they see as ‘wrong’ in the other’s opinion, but the very foundations that they themselves are standing on.

  2. ancarett Says:

    We’ll have to hopefully agree to disagree here. I don’t see that the fetus has any legal standing as matters currently stands, neither do I think it should. I don’t think that the fetus has any personhood. It is potential.

    In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be wanted. In reality, Americans have the worst of both worlds in that access to birth control, sex education and abortion are all under siege so that, ironically, the rate of unwanted pregnancies stands very high and abortion rates are much higher than than many other places.

    Were abortion to be fully recriminalized, I would expect the deathrate of women seeking illegal abortions to rise to their pre Roe v. Wade levels or near enough, particularly amongst the poor who couldn’t travel out of the country for the procedure. Women have been procuring abortions for a very long time (in the period of English history which I study there were many remedies shared to “restore regular courses” which were known to be abortifacents (but no one said much since the pregnancy was not recognized until after the fourth month and the first detectable signs of movement) and rolling back the law won’t stop that.

  3. Gareth Says:

    I didn’t mean to comment on (or imply a comment on) your views on the status of the foetus; but I do have strong opinions upon the manner in which the differences of opinion in this aspect of the debate are treated.

    For example, the pro-life concept of the foetus is a relatively new invention but is treated by the pro-life movement as an eternal truth. Not so - as pro-life students of the history of moral theology usually discovers to their horror. (Not the most popular of subjects of study, I know, but the religious belief that moral “truths” are unchanging is the greatest fallacy of them all.)

    Equally, on the other hand, it does seem ironic that the “liberal” argument for freedom of choice requires the absolute rejection, without any hope of reconsideration, of the validity of converse opinion. What is liberal about predicating a conclusion upon a premise that unacceptable to dissenters, and refusing to allow the matter to enter the debate?

    Both sides are, in effect, claiming “absolute truth” and denouncing the other in the most vehement terms they can muster. Both sides are acting like extremists.

    For sure, that is expected in any debate where the passions run high - but being expected does not validate or justify it.