One topic that has been a recurring hot topic in the news around every election season since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 is, you guessed it, abortion. On one side of the aisle you have people that are saying allow contraception and abortion because it is a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. On the other side of the aisle you have people who are saying sex is for producing children only and therefore we should not allow contraceptives and abortion, but rather promote an abstinence only approach to preserve the sanctity of life. Well now for the first time ever, a compromise!!! Using my stunning super powers of common sense and basic logic I have over come the hurdles of indecision that have remained impenetrable for the past 35 years. Without any further ado I will now explain how one can be both pro-choice in the name of women’s rights and pro-life in the name of children’s life.
My proposal is that women are allowed to choose whether they want to have sex or remain abstinent, whether or not they want to use birth control, what type of birth control they want to use (male condom, female condom, diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, oral contraceptive, high dose morning after oral contraceptive, contraceptive patch, vaginal ring, hormone shots, intrauterine device, tubal ligation, vasectomy, and/or the combination of any of these) based on the statistical success rates, and what brand of the type of birth control they want to use based on the brand’s statistical success rate. The variable plethora of choices gives women hundreds if not thousands of choices all providing variable rates of pregnancy prevention, pleasure, and std protection. And this is how I fulfill the pro-choice side of my argument.
In the end the only choice that the woman does not have is whether or not to kill her unborn child. While some may say that this is not free choice because the woman can no longer kill or to put it more pleasantly, “terminate” or maybe in a more Orwellian fashion if you prefer that sort of thing, “liquidate”, her child I believe this is not the case. To back up said point I have a quote from former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins”. Such is true with women and their child in my belief, the woman has the right to have sex with whomever she wants, she has the right to catch an std, she has the right to get pregnant, she also has the rights not to have sex, the right to attempt to prevent pregnancy, and the right to attempt to prevent an std. However the one thing that one must realize is that the woman has these rights because doing such things directly affects her life and only her life, where as killing your child, by the nature of the act itself, clearly must affect the child.
As to the question of at what point is an unborn child considered an unborn child, I would say when all the pieces are there to build it. Just as bricks, wood, and a labor crew all separated are not considered a house under construction, sperm, egg, and the womb when all separate are not considered an unborn child. However say you were to buy bricks, and wood, and pay a labor crew to build you a house, now you have a house under construction and if some one were to burn it down you could file criminal charges because they destroyed your house while it was being built. Now in the same fashion once a sperm and an egg come together, each carrying half of the supplies necessary to make a baby, and they do so inside a womb which is capable of building a baby, now you have a baby under construction until the date it is born, thus upon fertilization of an egg by a sperm inside of a womb you have an unborn child.
In the end I find that this compromise in keeping with the history of the American Justice system preserves the woman’s rights to choice so far as they do not interfere with a child’s rights to life. In the end I believe that it would be in the best interest of all those on both sides of the issue capable of using unemotional and unbiased reasoning (note neither the word God nor sexist references were used in this article) to agree that this would be a suitable compromise. By the nature of this argument being pro-choice and pro-life the only three groups that I can think of that would fall into this category would be religious extremists, feminists who are so in favor of women’s rights that they want to crush the rights of everyone else, and people who hate babies.
My proposal is that women are allowed to choose whether they want to have sex or remain abstinent, whether or not they want to use birth control, what type of birth control they want to use (male condom, female condom, diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, oral contraceptive, high dose morning after oral contraceptive, contraceptive patch, vaginal ring, hormone shots, intrauterine device, tubal ligation, vasectomy, and/or the combination of any of these) based on the statistical success rates, and what brand of the type of birth control they want to use based on the brand’s statistical success rate. The variable plethora of choices gives women hundreds if not thousands of choices all providing variable rates of pregnancy prevention, pleasure, and std protection. And this is how I fulfill the pro-choice side of my argument.
In the end the only choice that the woman does not have is whether or not to kill her unborn child. While some may say that this is not free choice because the woman can no longer kill or to put it more pleasantly, “terminate” or maybe in a more Orwellian fashion if you prefer that sort of thing, “liquidate”, her child I believe this is not the case. To back up said point I have a quote from former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins”. Such is true with women and their child in my belief, the woman has the right to have sex with whomever she wants, she has the right to catch an std, she has the right to get pregnant, she also has the rights not to have sex, the right to attempt to prevent pregnancy, and the right to attempt to prevent an std. However the one thing that one must realize is that the woman has these rights because doing such things directly affects her life and only her life, where as killing your child, by the nature of the act itself, clearly must affect the child.
As to the question of at what point is an unborn child considered an unborn child, I would say when all the pieces are there to build it. Just as bricks, wood, and a labor crew all separated are not considered a house under construction, sperm, egg, and the womb when all separate are not considered an unborn child. However say you were to buy bricks, and wood, and pay a labor crew to build you a house, now you have a house under construction and if some one were to burn it down you could file criminal charges because they destroyed your house while it was being built. Now in the same fashion once a sperm and an egg come together, each carrying half of the supplies necessary to make a baby, and they do so inside a womb which is capable of building a baby, now you have a baby under construction until the date it is born, thus upon fertilization of an egg by a sperm inside of a womb you have an unborn child.
In the end I find that this compromise in keeping with the history of the American Justice system preserves the woman’s rights to choice so far as they do not interfere with a child’s rights to life. In the end I believe that it would be in the best interest of all those on both sides of the issue capable of using unemotional and unbiased reasoning (note neither the word God nor sexist references were used in this article) to agree that this would be a suitable compromise. By the nature of this argument being pro-choice and pro-life the only three groups that I can think of that would fall into this category would be religious extremists, feminists who are so in favor of women’s rights that they want to crush the rights of everyone else, and people who hate babies.
To simplify terrorists, Femi Nazi’s, and Michael Jackson hate my proposal.
9 comments:
I think your Bin Laden and feminist nazi joke at the end provided the religious and sexist references you were so proud to say were not in the article...
I concur, however I just couldn’t help myself, I enjoy a good chuckle and I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to make myself laugh.
For the most part, I agree. I do think that many women are just using it as a form of birth control. We have so many different forms of birth control, that it seems insane to add one more to the list. I'm not a fem nazi, nor a terrorist, and I do happen to love little kids. I don't understand how anyone could hate them or want to hurt them.
I do, however, think that abortion should be allowed for certain cases. If there are medical complications, for example. I personally think it's better to lose one life rather than two, the lesser of two evils.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if there was a way around it, but sometimes one life must be sacrificed for the other.
*Note this is the above deleted comment, i misspelled some words and did not realize until after i published it.
Thank you for brining that up, I did forget to address the concept of medical complications, in the case in which the mother's life is in danger or their is an imminent health risk to her I do believe that she should be allowed to choose to end the pregnancy. From what I understand of the human body it is made so that if there is a problem with a baby it is miscarried so as not to harm the mother. If a problem of such nature exists and there is no miscarriage, again leading to problems with the mother’s health or survival, then in that case she should be able to opt for a "medically assisted miscarriage".
I agree with shoushi. In some cases, abortion shouldn't be outlawed. If you got raped, you should be allowed to abort the child. If sometime after conception you developed a medical condition, you should be allowed to abort the child. Also, I don't see how this proposal is a compromise at all, allowing birth control isn't exactly a pro-choice view point. Once you say "No abortions," you are basically stating the definition of a pro-life view point. Unless of course you focus on allowing the morning after pill, which you listed as a choice they could make. That would be a bit of a compromise, as all pro-life supporters I know consider the morning after pill the same as an abortion.
Well, you can ignore the part of my comment about allowing some abortions. Apparently you were writing your comment while I was writing mine :P
I when I wrote this is was just trying to collect all my thoughts and some things did get omitted. Another right that I meant to include did deal with rape and that would be the right to give up a child for adoption. I am completely in favor of allowing women to put up children for adoption, no questions asked. Another issue I did forget to mention was education. I believe that in this country the sexual education program is severely lacking and another right that I meant to include was the right to an unbiased and comprehensive sexual education program. It is my belief that if we give our school children the all of the information about sex including the risks of pregnancy and std’s and back that up with the statistics about various types of birth control effectiveness we will be in a far better place than we are now concerning teen pregnancy. Another element to this is parental involvement on the subject, all too often parents and teachers shun the issue of sex as taboo while television and movies show people going at it all over the place. The issue is not that media needs to be censored, because it is art and art involves the artist relaying a message or state of emotion, and by editing it you change the message and therefore the art. Rather than change the media equip our children with the facts they need to bring the sexual endeavors that they see in fictional media into a realistic light. If a child consistently sees people on tv running around killing people and none of them get into trouble then that child’s view point is being skewed unless they also understand that such things are not realistic.
im going to acctually condense this into an addendum post.
Post a Comment