In “Denying Women the Right to Live Their own Life, Their way” Erika de los
Her other point is that the bill is authored by a man about women’s issues. “In the end women carry 99% of the burden and thus should be able to make their own decision without being guilted into having an unwanted child.” This makes sense, and it’s a good attack from traditional feminism. The trouble is that it just doesn’t exactly work out that way. The most bitter anti-abortion individuals I know are women. The people that have been lobbing for the bill, going to various legislative offices, or making phone calls have generally been women. (An anecdotal survey at best.) This is why arguing this is just a women’s issue doesn’t work. Mostly women speak out against it as well.
The reason that many people believe that government has a right to step in and regulate what a woman does with her body is because (according to the Pro-Life movement) that isn’t her body. It’s somebody else’s body.
I’m not saying life begins at conception. That’s silly. But we have to recognize at some point between conception and birth there’s a grey and fuzzy line that, once crossed, would seem to suggest that Abortion has serious moral implications. Personally I think that the ground rules laid down by Roe v. Wade are pretty reasonable. Still, in order to argue against the Pro-Life movement we must try and point out that a fetus isn’t a human life, otherwise the argument “Our bodies” doesn't work.
The strongest argument here is the first. It’s that even if you agree that Abortion is wrong, this will do very little.
Something the Anti-Abortion movement should consider? A program to pay for the Child’s expenses throughout his/her life. Free College Tuition. Something. Forcing Sonograms on women just proves they care about as much about the unborn as they claim their opponents do.
No comments:
Post a Comment