Wading Into The Abortion Debate

Yesterday, Georgia state representatives attempted an end-run around the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a woman's right to choose regarding the carrying of her pregnancy to term.

Conservatives in that state's legislature introduced a new act, the “Paramount Right to Life” in an attempt to amend their state constitution. The act would extend constitutional protection to embryos “from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency.”

The following, if it wasn't real life, would make for a great subplot to some "V for Vendetta" type movie. The measure would effectively declare a person, well, a person at the moment of conception. It would also, effectively, make women who have miscarriages -- whether induced purposefully, or not -- criminals. Other spectators have raised questions about whether the amendment could result in the restriction of commonly used contraception methods.

The upshot is that this "legislation" is some poppycock foolishness.

First, medical science can't even reliably determine the actual date of conception. Second, for the first several weeks of gestation, a fetus cannot survive by itself. Surely, that has to be a test of viability. Third, and perhaps most importantly, how do you deal with pregnancy as the result of rape, or incest? Are these hillbillies -- sorry, but the term fits -- really suggesting that a woman be forced to carry a child that is the result of a violent or abusive act, as a constant reminder of her unfortunate victimhood? GTFOOH...

Listen, even those of us that are pro-choice are anti-abortion.

No one who believes it's a woman's right to choose necessarily wants a prospective mother to end her pregnancy. I know I don't.

That being said, with no better options given reduced national funding for child protective services, including as adoption, a ridiculously conservative stance on contraception, the exploitation of children being bought and sold, and inadequate funding for prenatal and post-natal care, the only viable choice for many a woman who's not fit -- by her own decision -- for motherhood is an abortion.

Oh and how's about a strong economy -- people with better jobs might feel better about their abilities to afford and properly care for children.

So, conservatives, give them better options. And you'll see a decline in abortion greater than that which is already occurring.

And let's break it down and be real: the wealthy and well-to-do will always have access to safe, if not legal, abortion. Money and influence buys one a lot of latitude. Hypothetically, can you see George Bush or Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue allowing their unwed, teenage daughter to, gulp, give birth out of wedlock? Hells naw! But their daughters surely wouldn't be having some back-alley clothes-hanger abortion, I can promise you that.

What you'll end up with is lots of poor women birthing lots of unwanted children, many of whom will be tomorrow's criminals, and lower class. (Methinks there may be some unholy nexus between the anti-abortion debate, and the anti-illegal immigrant -- damn near xenophobic -- wave sweeping the nation).

Regardless, it's not my, nor any other man's decision ultimately, to tell a woman "have this baby!" It's her body. And in the end its got to be her call.