Chipping Away
The Supreme Court has decided to uphold a ban against partial-birth abortions, and the Pro-Choice movement fears that this is just one small step toward more legislation to eventually overturn Roe vs. Wade. They fear this week's decision will begin a chipping away at this country's pro-abortion stance. I certainly hope so.
I am a student of rhetoric, and I have studied Hitler, MLK Jr., and Clinton, among others in past centuries, who were able to persuade mass audiences to think and believe and do absurd things. Yet, I am constantly astounded that women in 20th c. USA were able to convince lawmakers that murdering babies for convenience is acceptable moral practice. The constant cry of "it's my body" flies in the face of other laws on the books (you cannot, for example, use your body to smother a born infant, or to sell sex or even ride in a car unbelted). It may be your body, but you have created a life, and thus, you have a responsibility to, at the very least, NOT KILL IT.
If you want to argue that a fetus is not a life, well, that's your only argument. But stop with the "it's my body" rhetoric, because it just doesn't justify infanticide.
I am a student of rhetoric, and I have studied Hitler, MLK Jr., and Clinton, among others in past centuries, who were able to persuade mass audiences to think and believe and do absurd things. Yet, I am constantly astounded that women in 20th c. USA were able to convince lawmakers that murdering babies for convenience is acceptable moral practice. The constant cry of "it's my body" flies in the face of other laws on the books (you cannot, for example, use your body to smother a born infant, or to sell sex or even ride in a car unbelted). It may be your body, but you have created a life, and thus, you have a responsibility to, at the very least, NOT KILL IT.
If you want to argue that a fetus is not a life, well, that's your only argument. But stop with the "it's my body" rhetoric, because it just doesn't justify infanticide.
posted by Cole @ 5:44 AM
2 Comments:
At 9:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
(I) Some Legal Commentary:
Ginsburg's dissent to the 'Gonzalez' decision is embarrassing. Unfortunately for her, she's saying the very same thing that non-lawyer social commentators are: that the current Court (with Bush's 2 new appointees) is trying to undercut the long-standing right of a woman to control her reproductive choices.
That contention is plainly wrong. And even if it were right, that argument ignores the fact that the Supreme Court is charged with the duty of DEFINING constitutional rights. If the Court doesn't think a "partial birth" abortion is encompassed by the current right to choose, then ruling so is simply the doing it's job. What a stupid criticism!
And as I said earlier, the Court is clearly NOT trying to chip away at a woman's right to get an abortion. The Court decided the case on two issues: (1) was the ban overly broad, and (2) does it unduly restrict a woman's right to choose. Regarding the first, the law is VERY narrowly tailored to reach only a specific type of 2nd trimester abortions (which is disturbingly gruesome). And as for the second, a major aspect of the decision was that the ban itself, being so specifically focused, couldn't "unduly" infringe the right to choose b/c numerous other options - even in the 2nd trimester - are still available to women. Thus, it's apparent that the law seeks only to criminalize one, violent (inhumane) method of abortion - not to impede access to abortions outright. And the Court Majority merely - and correctly - recognized this. Hence, they upheld the law.
So, Cole, as far as rhetoric goes, even Ruth Bader drops the ball here. As Supreme Court Justices do from time to time, she's pandering to the public rather than levying legal arguments. The result is, as I said, embarrassing.
(II) Abortion Rhetoric Commentary:
You're right that "it's my body" is an insufficient argument by itself. BUT, when COMBINED with "a fetus isn't a life," a logically coherent argument emerges. B/c if a fetus isn't a life (man, that's a complicated argument EITHER way!), then it IS her body and she SHOULD be able choose whether she'll continue her pregnancy. But if it IS a life, then why the hell does she have the final and only say?
At 12:51 PM,
Cole said…
Mike, I could not agree more that, if the fetus is NOT a life, the government should stay out of a woman's business. If the fetus is NOT a life, then legally, we're back to seatbelt laws--the government trying to protect me from myself.
But I believe the fetus is a life. Thus, the rhetoric of "it's my body" falls way, way short with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home