November 19, 2004
Double-dipping Fundamentalist Politics and the Scott Peterson Trial
by Liza Sabater
TalkLeft: Pro-Life Group Applauds Peterson Conviction, Wants Abortion Outlawed
Did you catch the slick jargon, the "pre-born child?" Hypocrites, all of them. If they are so pro-life, why don't they come out against capital punishment? Where's their press release asking that prosecutors in the Peterson case drop the request for the death penalty?
This is why abortion is non-negotiable --it is not to the state to the decide when and how a fetus becomes a child. That decision is entirely up to the woman.
Yes, let me repeat what I have said before :
A FETUS BECOMES A CHILD WHEN I DECIDE TO CALL IT MY BABY.
It is not the job of the state or any religious doctrine to tell me when or why I should give birth. If you can't deal with that, just do yourself a favor : Call your mother and thank her for giving you the gift of life. Because whether she did it because she did god's will, let me state this clearly,
DOING GOD'S WILL IS STILL A WOMAN'S CHOICE
Take away the right to choose, and you will most certainly give away the right to choose your god's will.
It's that simple.
Posted by Liza Sabater in Abortion, Christian Fundamentalism, Dominionism, Language, Law, Motherhood, Parenting, Religion, Reproductive Rights, Roe vs. Wade
Permalink |
Comments (2)
| TrackBack (0) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2594
The following blogs make reference to this post :
Say it loud, say it proud!
I find your opinion interesting on this matter and I believe that it is both reasonable and valid. Unfortunately however, I think that the whole Pro-Choice movement is the underdog in this contest by a daunting margin. My reasoning in arriving at this dour conclusion are as follows:
The aging boom is what is ultimately going to end abortion rights. The primary reason for this impending crisis (Do not be fooled-It is indeed a crisis.)is a birth rate that is too low to produce enough citizens/workers to support these tens of millions of retirees. Immigration has helped ease this burden somewhat, but it has not brought enough people in to fill the void and it is unlikely that it ever will. The quickest and easiest way to produce the only real solution to this problem (a birth rate increase)is to convert prospective aborted fetuses into live births by banning safe and legal abortions. This may or may not result in yields adequate to reverse the problem completely, but the problem is big enough that it will force the government to act. An example of such a solution to a similar problem was implemented under the Stalin government of the USSR. After a year (1935, if I'm not mistaken) in which abortions outnumbered live births by a ratio of 2:1, the government acted within the scope of its arbitrary rights and promptly abandoned the procedure. Our democratic (if now solidly Republican) government doesn't have the power to take such action overnight, but it has enough popular support for such a ban to keep pushing for it until, amidst some prevailing future circumstances, it achieves a breakthrough.
I think thus that the choice, on whether or not we should have the right to choose, will eventually be made for us regardless of which side is, in fact, philosophically correct. It's not a pleasant thought to consider, but majority opinion and excellent legal arguements may not be enough to secure these rights for the long term. On the bright side, as I don't have any special ability to predict future events, that is just my opinion and things could turn out another way. -G. Smith
2
Comment by: Kenneth at December 13, 2004 11:48 PM
I'm deeply saddened by the death penalty for Scott Peterson simply because the case is based on circumstantial evidence. This does not mean that I don't consider that he is guilty, but to convict someone in this way is like a lynch mob expressing their emotion.
1
Comment by: G. Smith at November 21, 2004 07:31 PM