Disclaimer: I apologize to all those who are from countries other than America as my response to this post is based on how things work here. I can?t comment on what happens anywhere other than America as this is where I live.
Reply:
This has always been a fascinating topic for me. Both the government and the special interest groups have so successfully confused and clouded the issue that without even thinking about it, people now speak in terms of "pro-choice" or "pro-life," effectively missing the real issue at hand. The same strategy was used with the now-famous "separation of church and state" argument, a phrase which I defy anyone to find in the Constitution for the United States of America.
Before one can successfully argue whether or not a woman can contract with her physician to perform an abortion, two questions need to be investigated first:
1) At what point does the woman?s ?right to choose? come into play? and,
2) Does the government (re: society or ?The People?) have the authority to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
Consider this; We already tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, i.e., they can?t choose to take drugs, they can?t sell their bodies for sexual pleasure, they can?t drink before they are 18, and the list does on and on. Why do these things never come up in the "right to choose" argument? I would ask the hypothetical question "did the woman have the right before the government in question was formed?" If so, then it is an inalienable right, a right which cannot be taken away from her by man (re: government) because it was not given to her by man.
Secondly, I say that she indeed has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body as it is completely and only her?s, and this includes taking drugs or becoming a prostitute. That being said, the ?right? comes into play at the time she is to take a decision whether or not to engage in the activity which would produce a child. The pregnancy is but the consequence of her decision to engage in sexual activity, not something which happened without her prior knowledge or consent. (I will address rape, insist, mother?s health in a moment, so don?t get too upset with me right now.)
The People, in the form of the government, got involved in the argument when the question came up with regard to who was paying for the abortion. In America, tax payers have a right to say where their tax dollars are being spent. If those dollars are being spent on abortions for indigent woman, or women who fall into some government-created category or group, then the tax payers, by way of their representatives in Washington, do indeed have a say in whether or not government should fund abortions.
As with anything in life, there is no one facet to the question. I can argue cogently on both sides of the issue whether or not a woman has the right to choose to about killing or keeping her fetus. It is not a black and white issue. If a woman has a tumor which would certainly kill her if she did not choose to have it removed, then she absolutely has the right to choose to have a fetus removed from her body if she and her doctor are convinced that her life with be endangered were she to carry to term. For the ?pro-lifers,? how do you tell a 13 year old that just because her uncle decided to rape her, she must now carry a child to term and give birth? Or, if a mentally incompetent woman who cannot take an informed decision, nor care for herself, should she be expected to carry the child and give birth if she is taken advantage of? And sadly, as much as we do not like it, there are women who engage in unprotected sex and later use government-funded abortions as a form of birth control.
The ?pro-life v. pro-choice? issue arose when the government got involved in the equation by writing law which took tax dollars and paid for abortions with them. As soon as it did, The People suddenly had a voice in the argument. The abortion issue is as convoluted as an issue can be. Remove the government from the equation and you put the decision back in the hands of the woman, who we all hope will seek her doctor?s advice, as well as figuring into the mix the thoughts of the father, and that she will take the best ?informed? decision possible for her life. If her decision is based on anything other than what is morally best for all involved, then the consequences of her decision are between her and the one who created us.
Thank you for allowing me the time to share my thoughts.
Regards,
Swamp Thing
