winter

winter

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

I'm ProChoice and here's why.

So, someone sent me one of the usual ProLife/Anti-Abortion emails. Usually, I just delete the things and sneer at them as spam. Something about one I received a few weeks ago just pulled this response out of me.

> Hi folks,
>
> It's election season and we've seen alot of e-mail and
> other stuff about various issues. I'm sure that you
> folks even had an opportunity to read the
> anti-abortion email that I'm replying to here. I
> wanted to take a moment to address the issue from a
> different perspective.
>
> I don't exactly have any fancy emotional arguments or
> any wonderful people to reference, such as Mother
> Theresa. So, please take what I'm saying and treat it
> a bit gently. These are *my* words and it is *my*
> perspective and they're standing on their own here.
>
> I am one of those odd people who supports the decision
> made to legalize abortion on the case of Roe V. Wade.
> If you take the time to read the decision handed down
> by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS, for
> short)you'll find that the decision was made on the
> basis of privacy. My support of the decision is
> entirely on that basis.
>
> My body is my sovereign ground to do with as I please.
> Laws that are made to restrict what I do can only be
> to the extent of how I affect other people. The
> argument that abortion is murder faces a thorny issue
> of defining when life begins. SCOTUS has consistently
> refused to give a definitive answer to this question,
> as the general consensus is that it is outside of the
> scope of the duties, obligations, and right of what it
> is allowed to do with respect to the Constitution.
>
> I agree that if laws are going to be made to protect
> unborn children, then this question needs answered.
> Until that time, however, there is the question of who
> has the right to determine what you do with your body
> to contend with. The decision handed down by SCOTUS on
> the matter of Roe V. Wade doesn't just legalize
> abortion. It also protects the people of the United
> States from abuse under the color of law in the most
> heinous of ways.
>
> Even now, there are people who serve as elected
> officials on the State and National level who have
> proposed eugenics programs. This includes but is not
> limited to racially, ethnically, and disability based
> programs of sterilization. As long as the decision of
> Roe V. Wade stands, there is *no* hope of those
> repulsive measures being signed into law. To overturn
> that decision opens the door for things far more ugly
> then abortion.
>
> Additionally, the procedure that is known commonly as
> abortion (dilation and cutterage)will place the lives
> of many women such as myself at risk of death due to
> genetic gynecological disorders. I have a condition
> known as Poly-cystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS). Among the
> complications that I face is the potential of bleeding
> to death due to menstrual irregularities. The various
> methods of treating this disorder includes things such
> as the proscribing of common birth-control pills.
>
> Birth-control medication is part of a laundry list of
> things that are vehemently opposed by the Pro-Life
> individuals. I don't think that many of the Pro-Life
> group realize that the regulation of hormonal cycles
> which can prevent conception (as it's not 100%
> accurate, only abstinence is that accurate) also
> prevents the ovarian cysts that women with PCOS
> suffer. Ovarian cysts can prove lethal.
>
> If one makes these modes of treatment illegal, one
> then removes effective methods of saving other lives
> for the sake of saving potential lives. I can not in
> good conscience support that because *my* life is
> among the ones that is placed in mortal peril by doing
> so.
>
> And the high handed assumption that abortions are due
> to lazy and morally corrupt individuals who desire to
> be absolved of the responsibility of parenthood is
> repugnant to me. I personally know several women who
> have had abortions. The majority of them had the
> abortion because the pregnancy was not viable. The
> others it was because they were rape victims who had
> no means to even obtain adequate care for themselves
> thru the pregnancy, never mind to care for and raise a
> child. Unfortunately, I find that the negative
> assumptions regarding abortion are not the exception
> but rather the rule in the Pro-Life community.
>
> That disgusts me and I haven't the words to express
> the scorn I feel for the individuals who believe that
> all abortions are matters of convenience.
>
> If you want to vote for life, that's fine. Think
> carefully about what life you are voting for.
> Potential life is not the same as actual life and the
> majority of abortions are done before the first
> trimester is even concluded. As a matter of fact, most
> of them are performed prior to the fetus developing a
> heart or lungs. As such, can you say that the fetus is
> alive? Never mind if it is a person, which is part of
> the emotional appeal that is so frequently used in the
> Pro-Life argument.
>
> I'm sure that some of you are disgusted, horrified,
> repulsed, or enraged by my taking this stance and
> sending this e-mail to you all. It was not my intent
> to evoke any of those feelings from you. My intent was
> to inform and to encourage you to think carefully on
> this matter. The Pro-Life platform does not actually
> save all life in this case. It simply exchanges who is
> at risk for death and undermines our right to do as we
> please with ourselves and the sanctity of our bodies.
>
> Please keep that fact in mind when you consider this
> issue.

No comments: