1/22/2009

36 Years of Roe



This year's Blog for Choice topic: What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?

The passage of FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) would be one of my hopes, to be sure. In addition, I would really like for the focus of the abortion debate to be put back where it belongs, on the women facing an unintended, unwanted or doomed pregnancy. Listening to the voices of these women (pro-voice) is one way to accomplish this task. Further, I believe putting our energy toward better ways to help women avoid unintended pregnancy would be simply fabulous (including making sure that any and all contraceptive options are covered by insurance and/or medicaid.) And another thing that I think would be worthwhile is listening to the women who may be faced with an unintended, but wanted pregnancy and helping them to find a way to gestate their pregnancies if that is their wish (prenatal care and/or economic help.) My hope would be that every woman is able to decide for herself the best course for her pregnancy and also be sure that women (in consultation with their doctors) have the ability to make any medical decisions involving her pregnancy. Full bodily autonomy/bodily integrity is my hope!


3 comments:

LilBitBrat said...

Amen to that sister! You summed it up very well.

Anonymous said...

One of the major signs of decadence of the Roman Empire was that unwanted babies were killed and abandoned. Then the Christian opposition to infanticide and abortion turned out to be a major factor in institutionalising the sanctity of human life in the Western world. With the decline of Christian morality, abortion on demand has now become as widely accepted as it had been during the fall of the Roman Empire. If so, John Stott comments:“Can we claim that contemporary western society is any less decadent because it consigns its unwanted babies to the hospital incinerator instead of the local rubbish dump? Indeed modern abortion is even worse than ancient exposure because it has been commercialised, and has become, at least for some doctors and clinics, an extremely lucrative practice. But reverence for human life is an indisputable characteristic of a humane and civilized society

Jasper

MellanKelly said...

It's good to "see" you, Jasper. Wow, John Scott says lots of things, doesn't he? He also has this to say about philosophers, theologians and lawyers (although, he left out scholars,who also define personhood in non-scientific terms) taken from the Individual Sovereignist website: "Most definitions of personhood - in fact, all of them - seem to come not from science but from philosophers, theologians, lawyers and other mischievous evil doers." Evil doers? O-kay, buddy. Science can only explain "biological life"... does Mr. Scott actually expect people to discount all of the things which make up our lives as people? And another concern regarding Mr. Scott is that he doesn't seem to have a real grasp on the diffrences between nouns and adjectives... which makes much of what he writes and/or says, questionable (at the very least) And he waxes poetic about that insane "violinist analogy" which not only suggests that kidnapping and forcibly using a persons body against their will is an acceptable act but that it would also be a moral act (and never once mentions the fact that if someone is kidnapped and forced to do things that they do not wish to with their body; the kidnappers would be prosecuted and sent to jail.) I'm not going to put a whole lot of faith into the words of someone who actually holds these types of views (and is a little "iffy" on the whole morality thing) and who actually expects us to believe in the myth of "biological personhood." Ah, but it's good to know where your heads at, eh?