A Reader Writes
The following is a short essay by onegoodmove reader Nina Taylor.
Perhaps it is because I am a woman and feel so strongly against anyone but myself deciding what to do with my body, but recently; I am thrilled to not be a resident of South Dakota.
Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill that makes nearly all abortions illegal. The only abortions allowed to be performed will be those in which the mother’s health is in serious risk. Even if the mother’s health is in jeopardy, she must explore all medical options before ultimately receiving an abortion.
NO abortions will be permitted if you are raped, a victim of incest, or just plain foolish at 15 and not ready to have a life altering experience by bringing an unplanned and unwanted child into this world.
Teen girls should beware, they need to either keep the nickel between their knees or be safe!(And even “safe” fails at times) If not, they will be forced to have a child, not go to college, and perhaps help increase the welfare rate. I know that this is not the case for everyone; there are strong young and inexperienced mothers who accomplished more than many others. Teen pregnancy if nothing else, does put the mother-to-be’s parent(s) in a psychological strain and financial bind.
As for the women who are raped and victims of incest, well according to South Dakota’s progressive Governor, "We must help each mother to see the value of the gift that is a child, and nurture the mother for her own sake and for the sake of her child." (CNN.com)
Women can realize that their traumatic experience is actually like a game show, and the unborn fetus as a parting gift. So apparently, being a victim of rape or incest in South Dakota is akin to being on Let’s Make a Deal, picking door number three and winning a goat. Thanks Governor! It is kind of you to point that out for the ladies.
I suppose the goals in South Dakota are that the woman either keeps the child, or give it up for adoption. In a perfect world that would be wonderful, however there are over 500,000 American children in foster homes and about 120,000 American children are adopted a year. (AACAP.Org)
The fact of the matter is that Abortions have been a controversy because our “Christian” (generally) government believes that abortion is the murder of a life; although we have no scientific proof of when “life” actually starts. I do not know about most of you, but I don’t remember being in my mother’s uterus. I was merely a speck without organs or a brain, at least for the first few months. Some of my earliest memories are the birth of my younger sister and seeing my first movie Ghostbusters in a movie theatre, about three to four years after my birth. Ahhh! The eighties.
Since this controversy seems to be a religious debate, I do not understand why it is the government’s business to decide who can and cannot have a medical procedure. Another memory of mine is being in elementary school and learning in history class that church and state is “separate.” It seems that this constitutional law is becoming more of a mere suggestion to the government.
Now when the Pope says abortion is bad, I understand that. That is why the Pope isn’t our president. Religion would rule the country- oh wait….too late.
So thank you South Dakota government! Thanks for being the first state to let religion influence the laws. While you’re at it, why don’t you enforce hunting for witches and burning the unclean! It is too bad that “We don’t care what happens to our women as long as they have their babies!” is too long for a license plate slogan.
-Nina Taylor
Tweet
Comments
Here's a perspective you don't hear much about abortion: it DOESN'T MATTER when you believe life begins. This is only about personal autonomy (controlling what you can do with your own body), a concept every single American will get behind. Religious "concerns" or whatever else is merely smoke and mirrors.
Let's see... Pro-lifers think an unborn fetus has more worth than the living woman... Don't give a f%&* about you after you're born (no to public education, jobs, healthcare, freedoms, etc)... But do consider a woman who has been brain-dead for years and reduced to autonomous functions only to be fully living...
What's the central point? What ties these three positions all together?
Oh! Of course! The Brain! How simple! And how... explanatory...
No brain before birth. Brain after birth. No brain after death. Pro-lifers rail against such monstrosities as logic-based science, and math-based government (balancing the budget). It's all coming together now...
PRO-LIFERS ARE BRAIN-SUCKING ZOMBIES!!!
takes a bow
Bonus in South Dakota: don't make plans to adopt any unborn babies if you're gay...
THEO: "it doesn't matter when you believe life begins." Oh but it does! You seem to suggest that a person should be able to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own body. That's a fine sounding sentiment. But there are lots of things that one can do with one's body that are illegal. I can't, for instance, legally shoot heroin or do meth. I can drink but I can't drive while drunk. Suicide is illegal, as is indecent exposure. The principle involved here is that our personal actions affect other people. I hope we can avoid a discussion about whether or not these things should be illegal and just accept the principle that my freedom to wave my fists about ends where Norm's nose begins.
That's the real key -- we are largely free to do what we like as long as we avoid harming others. The critical question is whether or not that lump in your tummy is an "other" deserving of legal protection. Thus the question of when human life begins should be entirely central to the discussion.
Sorry, meant this link
Thanks for the slippery slope argument, Mike. Very cute how you equate drug abuse and the right-to-die with indecent exposure and drunk driving. Really, it was cute. I LOL'd.
"Very cute how you equate drug abuse and the right-to-die with indecent exposure and drunk driving."
These are just illustrative examples that Mike raised to make his point. He did not "equate" them with/to each other. If I list 2, 3, 5, and 7 as examples of prime numbers, I am not saying they are equal to each other.
For some of the reasons mentioned in AsinineAmerican's comment, that odd disconnect between caring about the life of an unborn and then supporting that life post birth, I always make it a point to never label them 'Pro-Life'. I prefer to apply the term Pro-Birth as it more accurately states their actual goal.
Oh but it does! You seem to suggest that a person should be able to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own body. That's a fine sounding sentiment. But there are lots of things that one can do with one's body that are illegal. I can't, for instance, legally shoot heroin or do meth.
You should actually read up on the history of drug policy in the US. It's been argued several times that people ~DO~ have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies, and that the illegal substance laws are unconsitutional. We just accept it because of basically political brain-washing (IE: 1950s movies).
Suicide is illegal, as is indecent exposure.
Suicide is illegal? I thought it was just immoral if you're Catholic. I mean what are they going to do if you kill yourself? How do they punish a "crime" that kills you?
The principle involved here is that our personal actions affect other people. I hope we can avoid a discussion about whether or not these things should be illegal and just accept the principle that my freedom to wave my fists about ends where Norm's nose begins.
And the other principle being stated is that an unborn fetus is not a person. A zygote is not a person.
But I don't buy that because the government says it's illegal to do drugs that I truely don't have the right to -- maybe I've just been brain washed by too many liberal history programs.
*inwit
Another bullshit argument. 2, 3, 5 7 may be examples of prime numbers but what mike is saying seems to imply that if you use the number 2 in math, it's as good as using 3 or 5 or 7 because the consequences are the same as they are all prime numbers anyway.
Anyone see the Real time with Bill Maher
Here's something that Gloria Steinem quotes about the SD law
here's the link to the transcript
aww. Isn't that a great example of real scientific thinking by the law makers?
sorry messed up on the link
here it is
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/transcripts/thborealtime_031006.html
Although I (kind of) applaud Nina's sentiments, she lets the side down when she suggests that active and redeemable memory marks the cutoff between child and foetus. In these perilous times, liberal thinking can't afford to be so woolly; if the question was so simple, there would be no need for debate. Mike Jensen makes a very good point - the question has nothing to do with memory and everything to do with "when human life begins". In the absence of any absolute knowledge, surely that is something that each individual decides for themselves? And since a foetus can't decide and somebody must, surely the somebody charged with bearing (and perhaps rearing) the child must decide on their behalf? I say this as someone who was in that position and faced with that choice, a long, long time ago. I made my choice as a very young woman, with the knowledge that it was my choice and something that would change my life forever. The issue is choice. PS: My then-foetus is now a law student, but if his little sister decided to terminate a pregnancy, that would be her choice, and her right to decide. So Mike Jensen is only partly right after all.... someone has to decide whether a woman will safely carry a foetus to term; and who else can it be, but the mother?
There is strong evidence to suggest that the dramatic decrease in the overall crime rate in this country is due to the legalization of abortion: fewer unwanted babies/children. Now let's see what happens to South Dakota's crime rate twenty years from now. Perhaps it is not a very good test case since the population of that state is so low. Oh well. Did you know that there are fewer people living in North Dakota now than there were when the Europeans arrived on this continent? I think South Dakota is experiencing the same phenomenon, but to a lesser degree. Now let's see how many people pack up and leave due to the radicalization of politics there.
Post a comment