![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 18th, 2007 08:35 am*sniff* I'm not supposed to get teary-eyed at my desk. Darn you Something Positive.
Apr. 18th, 2007
I understand that some people don't like abortion, I understand why they don't. No one likes it. No one goes skipping to the clinic saying "whee! I'm aborting my fetus today!". And even if they do...I don't give a fuck. Have an abortion. Have several. It's none of my business or the government's.
And even though it doesn't affect me personally, I'm still pro-choice. And while I don't understand later-term abortion when it's not a life-or-death issue, I can't bring myself to openly be against it. It's between the woman, her doctor, and her conscience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The justices ruled, 5 to 4, that a law passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush does not violate the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
Um...it may have been awhile since I took American History, but I thought upholding the rights of the (already-born) people was supposed to take precedence. Like, say, the right of the mother to live. Just a hunch.
President Bush called the ruling “an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life.”
I damn near snorted my coffee out at this one. Protecting human dignity? Good one, Bushie.
And even though it doesn't affect me personally, I'm still pro-choice. And while I don't understand later-term abortion when it's not a life-or-death issue, I can't bring myself to openly be against it. It's between the woman, her doctor, and her conscience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The justices ruled, 5 to 4, that a law passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush does not violate the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The majority said its ruling reflects the government’s “legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”
Um...it may have been awhile since I took American History, but I thought upholding the rights of the (already-born) people was supposed to take precedence. Like, say, the right of the mother to live. Just a hunch.
President Bush called the ruling “an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life.”
I damn near snorted my coffee out at this one. Protecting human dignity? Good one, Bushie.