With SCOTUS having heard the arguments on Mississippi's new abortion law, we are left to wait until it rules to see what will happen to the Roe v. Wade decision. Will it overturn that decision? We don't know yet. We should note that there were indications by the line of questioning used by some of the SCOTUS justices. Their questions indicated that the Mississippi law will be upheld. That is also indicated by the fact that the Supreme Court has 6 conservative judges and 3 liberal ones.
Comparing our current abortion laws with other nations, such as those from Europe, can be tricky because some sources slant what they write according to their own interests. But here is a significant part of the abortion issue: it's about associations.
What do associations have to do with abortion? When one considers what was happening in this nation at the time of Roe v. Wade, associations have a lotto do with the abortion issue. Back then, bearing children was strongly associated with the subjugation of women in our society. Thus abortion rights were strongly associated with women seeking to escape that subjugation and achieving an equal place in society. Thus it is logical to reason that to escape the sexist oppression of that time and the centuries before, women must have full control over their part in reproducing. And, as such, women were placed in a situation where they had a conflict of interest when considering the human status of the unborn might. For counting the unborn as being human and recognizing and recognizing its right to live can conflict with having fewer to no restrictions on abortion.
At this point it should be noted that women have a number of other reasons for wanting an abortion and they deserve a fair hearing. For one thing, and we guys can never fully appreciate this, giving birth is a traumatic experience for the woman. Those who have watched their wives give birth can attest to this fact. And though doctors can generally give reliable information as to when giving birth might endanger the woman's life, they are not infallible.
In addition, the economic impact that a woman can experience along the physical and emotional drain of taking care of possibly another child can greatly affect a woman's life and future.
On the other hand, we have the human status of the unborn to consider. At what point in gestation does the unborn become a human life? And can we determine that point without religious influence? How does the criteria we use to determine the humanity of the unborn impact how we will legally treat those who are born as they go through changes in life?
Personally, I oppose the legalization of elective abortions. But how can we not understand the complexity of the issue and the historical baggage that comes with it? How can we write proper laws on abortion while encouraging thoughtful discussions on the criteria we will use to determine what is human life?
If abortion only affected the women involved, then men should have no say about whether a woman has the right to an elective abortion other than to help guarantee that abortions are safe. But once we realize the possible human status of the unborn, then we must all not only put in our 2 cents on what is human life, we must listen to what each other says--a task made extremely difficult by the distance we create when we look down on each other. For if the unborn is a human life, then abortion significantly affects not only the woman, but another person as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment