Book of the Week: Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War
Monday July 21, 2008
Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com
Anti-abortion activism is perhaps the largest social protest movement since the 1960s anti-war demonstrations which gripped campuses and cities across the nation. Despite its size and power, however, it has failed to achieve its primary goal of making abortion once again illegal. They have certainly intimidated some abortion providers out of the profession, but otherwise the movement has become more symbolic rather than effective. Why?
Book of the Week: Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War
Comments
Why have the anti-choice crowd failed? Because they offer nothing other than forced pregnancy. These are the same folks who rail against moms on welfare and seek to deny women access to sex education and birth control. Seen the latest move from the Bush regime regarding birth control? They offer no solutions. Many women would continue their pregnancy but since they only have minimum wage jobs and no health care what is their choice? Why should a woman who’s been raped be forced to have her rapists child? More women die every year from pregnancy related problems than from a safe, legal abortion. Birth control is the best first choice but many women have no access nor choice in when they have sex. It’s really about privacy and control. These anti-choicers don’t want women to have either.
Why have the anti-choice crowd failed? Because they offer nothing other than forced pregnancy. These are the same folks who rail against moms on welfare and seek to deny women access to sex education and birth control. Seen the latest move from the Bush regime regarding birth control? They offer no solutions. Many women would continue their pregnancy but since they only have minimum wage jobs and no health care what is their choice? Why should a woman who’s been raped be forced to have her rapist’s child? More women die every year from pregnancy related problems than from a safe, legal abortion. Birth control is the best first choice but many women have no access to it nor choice in when they have sex. It’s really about privacy and control. These anti-choicers don’t want women to have either.
The anti-choice crowd has failed only because it would be more difficult to deal with reality than to dispose of it.
If pro-choice groups had the strength of mind to handle the difficult situations in life, there would be far less strain on society to support them.
All these right to strifers roil me up! The idea that somehow denying women birth control, family planning, etc. causes more problems, is ridiculous!
If there were easily accessible birth control, and yes, even abortion if necessary, everyone would benefit. Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy, ergo unwanted children, too many children neglected and abused, less infant mortality.
The realization that a woman is more than a baby making machine, seems to elude most of these pro-lifers as well. Just because a woman can have a baby, doesn’t mean she should be forced to bear one. There are legitimate and logical reasons for birth control and abortions.
Again, by providing an “out,” we allow society all the benefits desired with none of the after-affects. While I agree that no woman should be subject to rapist pregnancy, it does not justify the murder of an unborn person.
Our rampant desire to be sexually satisfied as a society has lead us directly into this situation. Just because the technology to “fix” the situation is there, does not make it right.
Care to explain what this means?
Feel free to support your claim that people who support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or not lack “the strength of mind to handle the difficult situations in life.”
Is this necessarily a bad thing? To put it another way, is there a principle here that you apply consistently and across all situations, or is this just something you say to justify a desire to force women to carry pregnancies to term?
You’re assuming that the fetus is a person, and not everyone agrees. Even if they did agree, though, it wouldn’t matter because no person has a right to use the body an organs of another person against that second person’s will. So, even if the fetus is a person with same moral and legal status as an adult, the state wouldn’t have the authority to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
Is there something wrong with being sexually satisfied?
True, but you haven’t made a case for it being wrong.