Could someone (preferably someone who is pro-choice, but I’ll take anything) explain the opposition to the “partial birth” abortion ban? The abortion issue is so muddy I don’t know what to think, other than I don’t like mud. Personally, I think the whole abortion issue would be much less of a problem if we had sex education that covered more than “don’t do it,” and people had easier access to plan B medication. And educating teenagers does not encourage them. I think that is a huge myth propelled by fear. Teenagers have hormones. And they have brains. If they want to have sex, they will, whether or not they are educated about it. All this mess about abortion could be greatly reduced if we had better and more comprehensive sex education. And I also don’t think the plan B pill is the same as an abortion. It prevents pregnancy in something like 80% of the cases. Why is this not more available?
English is a sexist language. It has sexist history. ‘Husband’ comes from a word meaning owner, and ‘wife’ from a word meaning woman. On top of that we have mailman, chairman, and most notably, ‘mankind’. I can see why some people would like to change these words to mailperson, chairperson, etc. One word that doesn’t need to be changed is ‘gunman’. I haven’t heard of any feminists lobbying to change the use of this word to ‘gunperson’. Why? Well it’s obvious. There are no female gun-people. Women don’t shoot people. Think about all the shootings in the last decade and tell me how many of them were female. Is it evolutionary? Maybe we do need a female president (and by the way, I’m undecided about that race right now).
Lastly, for those of us Utah Mormons, The U. is having LDS leader Thomas S. Monson speak at the graduation. BYU is having Dick Cheney. Hmmmm. BYU may have won in basketball and football this year, but Utah really kicked BYU’s collective rear in the commencement speaker department. So there.
Thursday, April 19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The whole idea of partial birth abortions horrifies me, but I guess "people" are concerned that banning this type of abortion will lead down the slippery slope toward banning all abortions.
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult issue, and one that I wish would stop being about a woman's "right to choose" and more about a woman's ability to choose what she does with her body so that she is not in the position to "choose" how to deal with the consequences of her choices (if that makes sense).
I also think that a lot of people get Plan B confused with the drug RU486. RU486 was a chemical abortion drug. Plan B is not. Plan B works (as far as I understand) by preventing fertilization or implantation, just like the pill or an IUD would.
It's a emotional issue for many people, on both sides, but I wish that everyone could agree that education and access to health care are the first place to start.
As for guns, one of my Canadian friends said that their gun control laws are much more strict than the US's, and I think that he said that they are not allowed to own semi-automatic weapons at all... He's perfectly fine with giving up his "rights" to own such deadly weapons in exchange for a safer society.
Could not agree more. I did hear from the "chair" of the Planned Parenthood Association this AM that one aspect of the court's ruling is that the law being upheld denied the ability of any doctor to abort a late term fetus to save the life of the mother. I believe the LDS position is to allow an abortion where incest has occurred and where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is horrifying to me, but the life of a mother outweighs that of a baby under that extreme situation in my opinion but I am a father not a mother.
I'm pretty sure that the ruling leaves an exception for the life of the mother.
ReplyDeleteIt does not according to the news report this AM on the subject.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's a little extreme. Basically the gov't is saying that the baby's life is more important than the mothers... Tough call to make I guess. It is kind of unnerving that parents can't make that decision anymore, but it's still a muddy issue for me.
ReplyDeleteA reading of the actual act (it's at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html) shows that while the congress claims partial birth abortions are "unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother" (Section 1, Paragraph 2), the United States Code would be modified with language making clear the ban "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" (Section 3, Paragraph a).
ReplyDeleteSo there is a provision for the health of the mother, but it's more narrow than previous language which would could have been interpreted to allow a headache to be reason enough to abort during the third trimester.
I agree with you though, that it's a muddy issue. I'm fundamentally pro-life, and am disgusted by this procedure, but to what extent it's the government's job to regulate it... I'm not really sure.
You definitely have me thinking about the Plan B thing though. My knee jerk reaction was always to be against it, but you have made me reconsider!