![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 08:00 pm (UTC)They might have a point, and they are right in that a lot of the earliest feminists were against abortion (but come on people, context!. Abortion used to be riskier than it is now).
But they just don't understand that some women don't want to be mothers, ever. It's the assumption that women are too silly to know what they want that bothers the living shit outta me.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 04:03 am (UTC)This from a man that slaughtered over 130 people when he was governor of Texas!