Bush II; Day 443: Blog For Choice Day

Was actually yesterday, but today is the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, and I am going to Blog for Choice today!

As Roe v. Wade teeters on the precipice (and I downheartedly do believe it will be over-turned by whatever court Dubya is responsible for before he leaves office) i think that we who fervently believe in a woman's right to choose should focus more on the word "right" than on the word "choose" in that sentence.

You can argue all you like, but to call abortion a "choice" makes it seem like a casual thing, an indulgent thing, a frivolous thing...like choosing a cereal in the morning, or what color dress to wear.

If we had a choice, most of us would choose never to be in the position of contemplating an abortion. I say "most", because I'm sure the right wing can and will trot out examples of women who seem to treat it frivolously. I've even talked to pro-choice women who have known women that they disparagingly accuse of using abortion for birth control.

Nevertheless, the question is who has the right to make decisions about a woman's body, health and life once she is in the position of being pregnant?

Wingnuts like to use the "slippery slope" argument a lot. The most common one being that gay marriage will lead to bestiality and polygamy and "dogs and cats living together" a la Steve Martin. Well, two can play that game, and if we can dictate a woman to keep a pregnancy, then how far a leap is it to dictate who has to get rid of a pregnancy, or who has to put their kid up for adoption, or any number of other intrusions into what should be a personal and private decision.

And how far a leap is it, if unborn babies and women have equal rights, to criminalize all sorts of behaviors in a pregnant woman if those behaviors are potentially harmful to her fetus? (And that would apply whether she knew she was pregnant or not, given that ignorance is no justification to break the law)

Are we down with criminalizing eating brie, eating too much fish, having a cocktail etc. as "child endangerment"?

To be blunt: what is the logical (not emotional) difference between an America forcing women to carry and have babies against their will and a China forcing women to abort babies against their will? In both cases it's a government over-stepping its bounds and infringing on the rights of its citizens who, last time I checked, are the actual pregnant women.

Let the flames begin.