I keep seeing this subject pop up on the prerifery of the discussions on
the "We the People" list.
] I'm so tired of
this argument; I've been involved in online debates on this issue for
more than 10 years. I'm tired of it because 'I' know the right answer;
but neither of the entrenched sides of the discussion care to recognize
it, no matter how many times I re-explain it.
Abortion wastes potential life (not a 'life' itself. That requires
brain function and breath; facts which the 'pro-lifers' gloss over in
the quest to 'save' the unborn. Question: how do you save children from
their own parents? Even the born ones?) and so should not be used
casually; especially medical abortion. Waste of potential, of any kind,
is repugnant; but there is more than one potential at risk here.
A woman has the right to use and abuse her own body as she sees fit.
Dictating to her the 'sacred' nature of the potentials she is faced with
is an invasion of her privacy. (Question: why isn't male masturbation
illegal? It too wastes potential 'life') If 'she' has no privacy, does
'he' deserve it? If individuals have no privacy, then neither do
businesses. Can you imagine corporations opening the inner workings of
their board rooms to public scrutiny? Can you imagine why Roe v. Wade
remains; and will continue as a decision?
The right answer is that gov't has no business being involved in
abortion; it shouldn't be banning it, and it shouldn't be paying for
it. It is wholly a decision of the individual involved; she does not
have a 'right' to expensive medical proceedures, nor does the husband
have a 'right' force his will on her (Don't like it? Don't plant seeds
where they aren't wanted) It is a private matter; and the right to
privacy exists whether you will it or not.
There is a need to determine, as a measure of justice, when life can be
'proven' to exist (without destroying privacy) so that those who are in
fact 'taking life' meet with the justice they deserve. I haven't heard
a logical answer, other than the one handed down by 'Wade', from anybody
to date. I would resist any statement, by any group I was affiliated
with, other than one that encompasses this simple fact; a declaration of
what life 'is'; and the need to hold it as a supreme value.
Anything else is a waste of time, and violation of rights which I hold