• coralsea

    Good letter — and it gets to the heart of the issue of a woman’s freedom to control what happens to her body.  It really is outrageous to expect a woman to be a “victim” in order for her to be “allowed” to have an abortion–which is what the rape/incest exception is basically saying.  Although I believe that this exception is brought up as a hypothetical to get those who are “on the fence” about abortion to imagine such scenarios, it plays into the concept that women who willingly have sex should “live with the consequences” (for being sluts!).

     

    Particularly now, when so many people are struggling economically and hunger among children and adults is on the rise, there is a subtext among conservatives that people have made their own beds (e.g., had kids they now can’t afford to raise “properly”).  Kids ARE expensive — and if we, as a society, value them, we need to make sure that the resources to help them grow into healthy adults (including a decent education) are made available.  We don’t really do that.  For all of the rhetoric about “family values,” many conservatives only value well-off families.

     

    But economics is, as this piece pointed out, only part of the issue.  If a woman is not in a place emotionally to deal with a child (or another child), we as a society have to honor this.  I am clinically depressed and have other health problems.  I don’t have kids — and this is probably a very good thing, because I don’t think I could have been there for them to the extent that I would have wanted or they would have wanted.  I was raised by a mother with mental problems, and mine was far from a happy childhood.  I am not saying that people who are depressed shouldn’t have kids (we can certainly manage depression better now), but if a woman doesn’t believe that she is “up” to the challenge of raising a kid, we should do her the honor of believing that she has more insight into her life than politicians in Washington D.C. or any of the state capitols.  

     

    Someone (I don’t know who) once said that all children should be wanted.  I believe that is true.  I also believe that, with so many other things in life, that part of the equation should involve allowing women to decide if this is the right time or circumstance to have a child.  It’s not always an either/or decision.  It’s a decision that can have many components to it, which may or may not be relevant at a particular time and in a particular place in a woman’s life.  

  • cmarie

    When it comes to abortion Americans are split just about down the middle.  Almost half approving of it in ALMOST any case and most of the other half opposing it in ALMOST any case.  But both sides have their radicals.  Peter Singer (who doesn’t believe children are fully alive until they’re about two and has no respect for the disabled at any age) is a radical.  Almost no other pro choice people support his ideas.  He is a professor of bio ethics at Princeton University.  In years gone by they just would have been honest and called him a professor of Eugenics.  You don’t have to be as out there as Peter though to be a radical even to most other pro choice people.  Very few support pulling a five month fetus out of the mother except for his head, then forcing the birth canal closed so the head will not follow, then sucking the brains out of the head before allowing it too to be delivered.  This is also known as partial birth abortion.  There are also radicals on the anti abortion side.  These include people who would withhold EC from a rape victim.  I agree with Rachael Maddow.  That final group of people are extremists too.

Mobile Theme