Abortion – Whose right is it anyway? Part 2 of 3
Though Roe vs. Wade firmly states that it is a woman’s constitutional right to determine whether or not to carry a fetus, leaders of government seem to be moving more and more towards making abortion illegal. According to the Washington Post, in February 2003, lawmakers from South Dakota voted 23 to 12 to approve a ban on abortion. The mostly male supporters of this ban say they hope it “will lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade”. Republican Roger W. Hunt, one of the bills sponsors, was quoted (Washington Post 2/23/2006) as saying “the momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future”. Another matter of disturbance was Hunt’s statement in the same article, that the bill made no provision for “rape, incest or the health of the woman because such special circumstances would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene”.
The North Dakota law may appear of insignificant national interest. After all, each state has its own constitution, laws and government. Some things illegal in one state, may be acceptable in another. In one state, it may be legal to marry at 16, while most others have a requirement that one be at least 18 to marry. The statistics however, show that this law is not a North Dakota phenomenon. Sixteen states still have laws on their books prohibiting abortion, while three states have laws worded to the effect that if Row v Wade is overturned, abortion is to be prohibited. If the trend continues, we may soon turn to the way of El Salvador, where otherwise law abiding citizens are criminalized because of abortion.
It is understood that America as a society was built on choice. The pilgrims traveled here fleeing religious persecution. They were tired of a system which forced them to conform to (usually catholic) beliefs which they did not espouse. A system in which everything, including your person, was owned by the king. The constitution was so designed that citizens of this newly free land would be able to exercise much freedom.
Who should decide anyway? If your religion prohibits abortion, is it for the state to impose its belief, or should that be personal – between you and your God? Isn’t “God” the author of freewill? Shouldn’t obeying his commandments (whatever you deem them to be) a choice? As a youngster, I was taught a basic principle of Christianity – God calls, you decide whether or not to answer. I find it most “un-Christian” to try to impose views or will. The absolute view held by ultra conservatives like Hunt is actually the both unrealistic and nonsensical. Why should I be legally bound to live up to someone’s religiously skewed perspective of morality, especially in a country which has no official religion? No group has the inherent right to police the human conscience. What if a woman, while on her way home from work, is impregnated through rape? Emotionally scarred, she is forced by the state to carry for nine months the reminder of her disgust! Shouldn’t she be allowed to decide whether or not she is emotionally capable of nurturing and carrying said fetus? Why should the state impose its ideals on her, especially in light of the fact that the state failed to protect her from this heinous act? Should she be forced to add a prison sentence to her embarrassment?
