« Norm’s New Gig | Main | Rush Limbaugh Concerned About Racism, Anal Sex »
Blogging for Choice
By Jeff Fecke | January 22, 2009
Today is Blog for Choice Day, and the topic de l’année is pretty straightforward: What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?
My hope has already come true, in the form of Barack Obama’s proclamation issued on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Because my hope was that Congress and the President would place Roe in its proper context. And at least so far, they have:
On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.
And that is exactly right. The fact is that Roe is not just about the right of women to control their reproductive destinies — though that certainly is a vitally important part of it. It is about the right of women to control their destinies, full stop. That is not just about abortion. It’s about so much more than that. And I am so grateful that the President recognizes that. Hopefully, he will take those words and put them into action over the next eight years.
Topics: Abortion, Barack Obama | 11 Comments »
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Absolutely! Roe vs Wade is about so much more than abortions, it’s about accepting that women are capable of making decisions about their bodies, whatever that choice may be.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Jeff wrote:
Think of what you’re saying when you use that logic. The effect of aborting a baby is that a woman controls her destiny, by choosing when to give birth. But in order to seize such control, she has to kill her own offspring. If killing offspring produces control — if the right to abortion is essentially about women retaining control — then the question is whether women should have such control or not.
Control superseding the right to life? Control superseding the right of others to control their own lives? That’s the control that is justified simply because the baby is growing inside the mother? It seems that what you’re saying is that if someone depends on you totally, you should therefore have the prerogative to revoke that which they depend on, even if it means causing them to die.
If someone depends totally on you after they have been born, should it be your prerogative to kill them? To starve them? To abandon them? To dissolve your legal responsibility to them? At what point do we draw the line of responsibility and obligation? Because if the priority is to give someone control over those who depend on them, then we can take that concept to extremes.
In my opinion, women should not have such control. They should not have so much control that they can snuff out another life. Full stop.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Control superseding the right of anyone — anyone — to control one’s own body. If you disagree, John, I assume you’ll be going down to the Ministry of Health to have your tissue type tested, so that we can harvest a kidney for some deserving person. You only really need one.
What? You’re going to snuff out a life by refusing to give your body to someone else against your will? John, your kidney would sustain someone! Surely, being forced to give it to someone else is only reasonable, right?
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Jeff, did you know that an abortion kills a woman’s own offspring, and that of all people to whom human beings should be protective and devoted to, it should be their offspring first and foremost? Did that occur to you?
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
I always find it of interest that the most vocal opposition to abortion comes from men, or male-dominated groups.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
I always found it funny how anti-choice people automatically assume that pro-choice people don’t know what an abortion IS.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Dalal wrote:
I always found it sad how anti-life people can acknowledge the gruesome reality of what abortion IS, and actually justify it in their minds.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Randy wrote:
Yes, I find that interesting too. In my view, it does speak to the humanity and decency of such men.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
If you call “meddling in a decision they will never be called upon to make” humanity and decency, I suppose it does. I have other terms for it, myself.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Randy wrote:
Like you, I sympathize with the difficulty such women face in deciding whether to dismember their offspring. It would be so much easier for them if they only had one option — to choose life.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“It would be so much easier for them if they only had one option — to choose life.”
Give women choices, and the world goes to Hell in a handbasket. It would be far better if we didn’t let them think for themselves.