| Re: abortion
Oh gosh, here we go again.
The "right" to an abortion has nothing to do with whether or not it is a womans right to "choose", to control their body from the pregnancy, but whether others such as their husband or Dr could choose for them. It is about a court ruling, at a time period when science could not even start to prove when a baby actually was alive or viable, about whether or not a woman had the right to Birth Control including abortion. There was question about whether or not a woman had to have her husbands permission to birth control or even whether a Dr could deny giving it to her at all. You couldn't buy stuff over the counter then and all birth control had to be prescribed. A former ruling had found that a woman had the right to birth control so when a women came to the same court saying she had been denied birth control/an abortion they ruled in her favor as well. Pity there is no actual clause in the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court the right to make that ruling but the court at that time did that more then once. Constitutionally the regulation of such should have been up to the states, but that is neither here nor there anymore.
The point of all this is that the true question isn't a "right to choose" but whether Abortion should be considered a legitimate method of Birth Control (especially with the advances in science that show just how alive the baby really is) and if it is at what point the right of the child to "life" becomes valued or under what situations would exceptions be acceptable?
And yes, most religions, not to mention most people, consider rape a situation where an exception can be made at the choice of the mother! There have been cases of forced abortions from rape which is utterly despicable. |