Choice (with an edit)
Feb. 23rd, 2006 08:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am treading on delicate ice, so a few tips: I am not really looking to engage in a debate on the merits of abortion. My personal opinions on it,per se, are, immaterial. I happen to think it a right, and as such, like one's right to speak out in public on things I despise, practice a religion I think silly (or even damaging) and your right to marry whomever you want, and do with them in the bedroom anything the both of you agree to.
That's my position on the issue, and arguments that it's murder, or ought to be only for special circumstances, or that there comes a point where it's not justified don't hold with me. The choice is the woman's. Not mine, not the State's, not a church's, not anyone but hers.
So this ban of all abortions in S. Dakota which don't, "threaten the life," of the mother bothers me.
Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.
“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
Now me, as I said above, rape isn't the issue for me, the woman's right is. This bill strips one of her rights. The governor of S. Dakota has said he'll sign it. It will be challenged, and we can be certain Samuel Alito will vote to uphold it.
This is what the vote for cloture did. It's what Lieberman, and all the rest of the asshats who voted yes, before they voted no; and voted that yes in a way which invalidated their no vote.... which is to say they voted yes, did, because this statute is almost exactly the same as the one struck down in Roe v. Wade. If this is upheld, Roe is, in fact, dead.
The fact of the matter is that while State Sen. Julie Bartling is right, "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children." it's a minority. It's a vocal minority, and one which understands that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that minority is trying to step on the rights of others, because the excercise of those rights offends them.
And it is about them being offended. Most of them have no problem with the death penalty, and they get sniffy when arguments are made against it, even when those arguments are based on the sanctity of human life (me, I disagree with the death penalty, not because of that sanctity, but because I don't trust the state to not make mistakes, and for the innocent to suffer is a greater wrong to me than any amount of revenge on the guilty might make up for).
The people who are for this, are also for other restrictions, on birth control, on privacy, on freedom of; and from, religion. Am I stereotyping them? Some. I don't think they are all Fred Phelps, but I do think the majority of those who are against choice in this matter, are against it in others.
They want a nanny-state, one in which personal freedoms are subsumed to the greater good of the State,and that state is made in the image of some paternalistic control of vast swathes of what we now count personal choice.
Elections are coming. Some, like Leiberman, are vulnerable. Turn the bums out.
Because to leave the weak-sisters in office is to see more authoritarians like Alito on the bench, more laws like this, and PATRIOT, passed, and less of what we think of as America.
That's my position on the issue, and arguments that it's murder, or ought to be only for special circumstances, or that there comes a point where it's not justified don't hold with me. The choice is the woman's. Not mine, not the State's, not a church's, not anyone but hers.
So this ban of all abortions in S. Dakota which don't, "threaten the life," of the mother bothers me.
Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.
“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
Now me, as I said above, rape isn't the issue for me, the woman's right is. This bill strips one of her rights. The governor of S. Dakota has said he'll sign it. It will be challenged, and we can be certain Samuel Alito will vote to uphold it.
This is what the vote for cloture did. It's what Lieberman, and all the rest of the asshats who voted yes, before they voted no; and voted that yes in a way which invalidated their no vote.... which is to say they voted yes, did, because this statute is almost exactly the same as the one struck down in Roe v. Wade. If this is upheld, Roe is, in fact, dead.
The fact of the matter is that while State Sen. Julie Bartling is right, "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children." it's a minority. It's a vocal minority, and one which understands that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that minority is trying to step on the rights of others, because the excercise of those rights offends them.
And it is about them being offended. Most of them have no problem with the death penalty, and they get sniffy when arguments are made against it, even when those arguments are based on the sanctity of human life (me, I disagree with the death penalty, not because of that sanctity, but because I don't trust the state to not make mistakes, and for the innocent to suffer is a greater wrong to me than any amount of revenge on the guilty might make up for).
The people who are for this, are also for other restrictions, on birth control, on privacy, on freedom of; and from, religion. Am I stereotyping them? Some. I don't think they are all Fred Phelps, but I do think the majority of those who are against choice in this matter, are against it in others.
They want a nanny-state, one in which personal freedoms are subsumed to the greater good of the State,and that state is made in the image of some paternalistic control of vast swathes of what we now count personal choice.
Elections are coming. Some, like Leiberman, are vulnerable. Turn the bums out.
Because to leave the weak-sisters in office is to see more authoritarians like Alito on the bench, more laws like this, and PATRIOT, passed, and less of what we think of as America.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:51 pm (UTC)However, while the most vocal anti-abortion leaders might oppose other forms of birth control and sex education, not all do. Personally, I'd rather make abortion unneeded rather than illegal. Which functionally puts me alongside
many pro-choice folks I believe.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 12:53 am (UTC)If it isn't murder (the unlawful killing of a human being) then there's no reason to be against it.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 01:21 am (UTC)My sentiments exactly.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 04:34 pm (UTC)It's interesting that under the Clinton Administration (which fostered those things) abortions dropped.
Under Bush, who's administration is anti-abortion, and anti all the rest (taking the Saletan school of thought, i.e. make sex shamful and abortion harder to get; and with hurdles meant to increase the shame of having had sex; Bush, et al. also add the filip of making the risk of actually getting pregnant higher) abortions have gone up.
Which tells me they are after more than just abortion, but have a fundamentally different view of the social place of women.
It's a view I despise.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:34 pm (UTC)It's a view I despise.
Cannot agree more. They might as well revoke my citizenship if they have any say over who I am as a woman and what I do with my body.
Sex change operations are looking more attractive by the day. :P
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 03:17 am (UTC)I understand the sentiment of making abortion unneeded, but it sounds like avoidance of the issue. Birth sometimes control fails, teenagers (and people in their 20's, 30's, 40's) are sometimes foolish, and 2000 years ago a girl who had never even touched a man got pregnant. So don't tell me that abstinance is 100% effective either.
Seriously though, the legality of abortion is under fire now. The issue won't wait at the sidelines until new technology comes along in the future and new technology may never be 100% either. Look at "Star Wars," they can travel at the speed of light, but can't make an effective contraception (even The Force is powerless). If you want fewer abortions, then you're pro-choice. If you want no abortions, you're either dreaming or pro-life.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:38 pm (UTC)lol