Okay, I don’t know how long this thing is going to be. Basically, like with the previous post where I tackled the Freedom of Speech stuff, today I’ll talk about the abortion debate.
And the more I think about what the article will say, I realise this isn’t a debate at all. Its either idiots being stupid, or other idiots misinterpreting the arguments other people make, and mix that in with hardcore religion. Religion + Idiots = Disaster. Sorry, republicans.
So the argument splits itself rather neatly into reasonable people and idiots. With reasonable people occupying pro-Choice movement, where they basically think (and in case you haven’t figured it out, I agree), where it is agreed that women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies because OF COURSE THEY DO. Certainly, if abortions would become illegal if the other side were to win the debate, I would side here every time. I think it’s fine to not abort or believe in conception. It is, however, another thing to inflict your religion-based and rather ignorant views on ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.
And then there’s the other side which basically believe life is sacred. And, as far as the point goes, I don’t completely disagree. But I think they’re going the wrong way about it. Because the fact is abortions will happen whether they’re legal or not. But if they’re illegal, there will be a significantly higher number of harmful abortions and/or people that dies because they screw it up. The other thing they do, and this is totally reprehensible in my opinion, harass women outside abortion clinics. NOW. My article yesterday talked about freedom of speech and the fact that you have NO RIGHT to intimidate, threaten or kill people for having views that oppose yours.
The other thing the zealots do, is they call their movement pro-Life. While this is technically true, it’s also complete bullcrap. Because there are situations where it would be best to abort a pregnancy (mostly limited to if your personal current situation would not be conducive to the raising of a child; or concerns over the health of said child that would make their life unassailably difficult. This would, only on some occasions, include aborting because of disability). So basically the argument should instead be summarised as (as the title to this thing suggests) Pro-Choice or No-Choice. Because if the idiots have their way, the Government would legislate. And that would be bad.
Okay. So, that’s my view. The final point I wish to make is one I don’t see especially often. I am a man. This would mean, would it not, that I have no place in deciding what a woman does with her body? I also have no medical expertise whatsoever. So do I have the knowledge to recommend a thing without knowing it’s the right choice? No. If I have no right to expect people to take my opinions seriously, then why do the (mostly male) politicians that are pushing through these laws think they can?
Heh. 510 words.
As you were.