Wow.
She raises an excellent point.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eclecta = Me
Just another smart blonde
Twitter Twaddle
About Me
Bonjour, je m'appelle Eclecta!
Best of Eclecta
- 99 Too Many Things About Me
- Eclecta's Best Photos
- Auntie Eclecta
- Things That Make Me Happy
- Post 921
- Reprise Surprise (Eclecta becomes a vegetarian again)
- Life's Little Surprises
- Where Nature and Man Collide
- An Object Lesson from Nature
- Diary of a Neophyte FLAP Volunteer
- The Great Plumbing Adventure
- Leadership
- Hawk-Watching
- Me - Hang-Gliding!!!
- Summary of Volunteering for International AIDS Conference
- Best Wedding Photos Ever
- Making a Difference
- Tantric Pizza
Recommended Blogs & Sites
Veggie Resources
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(543)
-
▼
March
(12)
- Gotta love Rick Mercer
- Pink's rocking video - "Stupid Girls"
- Kevin's Photos
- U.S. soldier sees personal mission fade in Iraq
- The Best Way to Get Over a Divorce
- Find 11 Faces
- Pierre
- Disposable?
- Autistic boy breaks through his own "Berlin Wall"
- Maya Angelou's eulogy to CSK on video!
- Amazing ads re. Meth
- Brokeback Mountain
-
▼
March
(12)
4 comments:
Actually, I don't think she raises a good point, unless she is only defining herself by her ability to choose whether or not she can have an abortion. And to me, that's a pretty poor way to define your self-worth.
I'm not a good analytical thinker and most of what I'm feeling right now is a gut reaction for the "pro-life" side of this argument. But her last statement of "Not one of us sacred or of worth, once born." I think is way off the mark. I believe I'm made in God's image, and that - in and of itself - gives me worth, regardless of whatever else I do or don't do with my life. I believe that also makes me sacred. So maybe "SusanG" needs to re-examine her foundation and find something else to depend on, if she considers herself worthless/disposable because she might/might not be able to have an abortion. Come on! There's more to life than that.
Hi Fazer,
Respectfully, I think you've missed the point. She's not defining her value based on whether she is legally able to have an abortion (how twisted would THAT be?). What she means is that the people pushing such laws are choosing the life of the fetus over the life of a woman. Such laws basically imply that it is far more important to save a fetus than someone who has already been born (i.e., a woman).
Thanks for visiting and leaving your comment.
E.
Sorry, but I don't think that's it either. People pushing such laws aren't choosing the life of a fetus over the life of the woman. Based on what the Washington Post article says, abortion is permissable if the life of the woman is in jeopardy, which means in those cases where the woman will die if not receiving an abortion, she gets precedence. The woman isn't discardable - the law is making it so that the fetus isn't discardable too.
Hi Fazer,
If you read the quote from the Washington Post article carefully, it actually says that the bill was written so as NOT to allow a woman to have an abortion even if her health was at risk.
From today's New York Times:
"Now, South Dakota has thrown down the gauntlet. It adopted a law last week that makes every abortion that is not necessary to save the life of the mother a crime ... South Dakota's abortion law is the most restrictive one adopted by any state since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It does not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or from incest. Nor does it allow abortions that are necessary to preserve the health of the mother."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Post a Comment