Choice VS The State?
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 02-27-2004 - 4:04am |
http://www.dear-me.com/Articles/FreedomVSState.htm
Freedom VS The State
I rarely have any interest in politics, but it's hard not to notice or take an interest in the spooky pattern I keep seeing in news headlines lately. What happened to the separation of church and state? I'm sure I heard the Christian activists screaming about how liberals had put a stop to prayer in schools not so long ago, but now there is discussion of amending the constitution based on the religious beliefs of a Christian majority. So what gives? Are we reverting to the values and standards of the 1950's?
In case you haven't heard, Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe vs. Wade) recently requested that the 30 year old decision of Roe VS Wade, which found that the constitutional right to privacy gives women the right to choose abortion, be overturned. Apparently she has become a born again Christian and decided that based on her new standards and beliefs that abortion is psychologically harmful to all women. The original supreme court decision came after Ms. Roe had her third baby; the third that she put up for adoption- she was a 21 year old carnival worker at the time. I suppose she must have felt that birth control or asking fellow carnies to keep it in their pants was psychologically harmful to women as well. Her now altruistic speech of pro-life encourages others to visit her Crossing Over Ministry website and read about her dramatic conversion to good from evil by purchasing her book or videos “Won By Love†for the bargain price of $20.00 plus $2.50 s/h. I wonder if Ms. Roe has done any research on the mental states of unwanted children thrown into foster care or raised by parents that spend their welfare checks on cigarettes and beer while their kids go to school wearing filthy clothes that look as if they're held together with tape and staples?
While I do not condone abortion as a method of birth control (there are plenty of less radical methods to prevent that situation in the first place), I refuse to agree that the government has any business whatsoever regulating a woman's right to that decision. Our president seems to wholeheartedly support this movement however. He backed the lobby against partial birth abortion and vowed to pursue legislation to forbid human tissue cloning for embryonic stem-cell research; stating that “Human life is a creation, not a commodity and should not be used as research material or for reckless experiments.†Additionally, he mentioned during the March for Life rally that he is granting more money for abstinence-only sexual education programs.
Mr. Bush, women are not walking incubators. Your religious beliefs and convictions have no place in politics or lawmaking. If you can't make an educated, unbiased decision- based on facts and rationale, rather than Christian mythology, then you should resign your position and leave it to someone who can make decisions without letting religious sentiment cloud sound judgment. I'm relatively positive that the scientists working to cure diabetes, cancer, aids, Parkinson's disease and a host of others through stem-cell research- do not view their efforts as merely “reckless experimentation†and neither should you. If I could have given all of my unfertilized eggs to save my Grandfather from esophageal cancer, I would have done it gladly. Watching a vibrant, intelligent man suffer and die in horrible pain is heartbreaking. How can you have more feeling for a blob in a petrie dish than a living, dynamic person? I'm sure your predecessor, Mr. Reagan, would agree with me - that is if he can still comprehend a discussion about how stem cell research could treat or someday cure Alzheimer's disease after battling it for ten years.
Ms. McCorvey's and Mr. Bush's efforts would be much better spent by focusing on the living, rather than the potential unborn. Those of you supporting them should use your efforts to help the millions of unwanted children that are already in this world. Mr. Bush, if you're going to give funds to sex-ed programs, don't select which ones on the basis of a right-wing morality, give to all of them. Trying to tell a teenager that he/she must abstain from sex will be about as successful as the Catholic decision to bar their priests from women and marriage. (We've all heard how well that noble idea has worked out)
Taking away choice or attempting to hide truth under blind faith is a poor solution to any problem. Instead of trying to force people to make your choice, give them more choices and educate them with facts . The decision of whether a woman should subject herself to abortion by a “coat hanger butcher†as they did in the 50's or become a walking incubator isn't truly a choice. Where will the pro-lifer's be when that unwanted fetus is born and becomes a child? Will they protect that child and fight for its health, its mental well-being or its need to be loved after it is born? Will they ensure that the baby they “saved†isn't resented, bounced from foster home to foster home, abused or neglected because they forced the mother into making her decision? No. They'll be busy at the next rally to save the “unborn victimsâ€, feeling victorious about sparing yet another new life from the unspeakable fate of death. There are things done to unloved children that are much worse than death, I can assure you.
Stop using our government as hired muscle to help you promote your personal beliefs and people's freedom of choice as a stepping stone towards your personal political agenda. Even your Christian God allows people free-will. Ask yourself why.
For more information about protecting women's freedom of choice and other issues with the abstinence only sex-ed campaign visit http://www.plannedparenthood.com/

Welcome to the "In the News" board.
Thanks for posting about this trend in politics.
I've known plenty of women who've had abortions - have you ever known ONE to whom it wasn't psychologically harmful? Not me. I certainly don't know ALL the women in the world who've had abortions - but all the ones I do know personally have had a real tough time with it. No matter which choice you make, to abort or to have the child, there ARE consequences.
IMHO abortion is a decision that is not taken lightly, and of course, there may be psychological consequences. My opposition to pro-life has always been to the question of WHO should make the choice. I don't think government has a place in a womans decisions about her body. It is just that simple for me!
Also, whats more important...bringing a baby into the world when you are not prepared or want it, or making an informed decision to not have them. The baby would be better off not being born than being raised by parents on whom they are a "burden" or "a mistake".
--Zenobia
http:\\zenobia-zone.blogspot.com
ITA.