This day just came up so quick! Before I knew it, I had arrived on Jan 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe. And the question I'm supposed to answer is, "why do you vote pro-choice?"
And my answer is, how can I not?
I trust women. I trust them to make the correct decision for their situation, every time.
End of story since I'm blogging on my lunch period.
2 comments:
In the interest of constructive dialog, I had to comment on this one.
Trusting all women to make the right decision for their situation all the time doesn't really make sense to me. If becoming pregnant is not the right decision for a woman, then why does she engage in acts known to cause pregnancy? Choosing to have sex if you're not prepared for the consequences (a baby) is not the right decision, however you slice it.
Robin, I respect your beliefs and opinions even if I don't agree with them. But I do think your readers would benefit from a better explanation of your stance.
My turn!
I come down on Robin's side of this one. While I do agree that people in general should be held responsible for their actions, I think doing so in the case of an unwanted pregnancy causes more harm than good. It's a little trite, but there's been a great line thrown around: How can pro-lifers only care about the fetus UNTIL it's born, and not thereafter?
Forcing a woman to bear a child for which she is emotionally or financially unprepared, or has been thrust upon her (pardon the diction) through rape or incest, is likely to cause more harm than good.
I don't believe the government (who conservatives DON'T trust to get involved with properly distributing health care funds, administrating education, or make the right decisions regarding the legal status of cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs) is best positioned to make a decision on behalf of an individual woman.
However, I WOULD be willing to entertain the idea of eliminating abortion as a practice IF the government committed to providing full financial support for any child who would have been aborted, but was not because of the government's decree.
Would this be problematic? Hell yes. How do you differentiate between people who WOULD have gotten an abortion, and those who are only CLAIMING they would have for the sake of the "subsidy"?
Would this represent an enormous drain on the economy? Certainly.
But, if you're going to claim, as the government, that you know better than this woman what's right for the life of the child, despite NOT being aware of the financial, familial, and emotional context in which the child will be raised, I think you ought to put your money where your mouth is.
I'm open to comment.
Post a Comment