Saturday, April 28, 2007
In Contempt of Women
note: Ii realize that I have already written once on this Supreme Court decision, but its implications are outrageous if you consider women as rational citizens (which this decision does not do).
The unborn fetus, not yet a citizen, has the right to life according to the five males who voted in the majority on the Supreme Court in Gonzales v Carhart [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf].
I hold them in contempt of women. These five men justify their position because some women might become, though they find "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon...that women may regret their choice to abort...[and thus suffer] Severe depression and loss of self esteem." (p.29) There may be a reason why there is no reliable data--granted some women will be saddened by making this decision, they will be able to in the future have children should they wish.
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority states that performing the intact Dilation and Extraction, a " procedure which is laden with the power to devalue human life" (p.28 of the brief), in fact devalues the woman's life in favor of the fetus. The law that prohibits (a type of ) abortion that has no exceptions to protect the woman's health or life. Their reasoning: the "intact D & E" aborted fetus looks like a baby. . .
IF lawmakers and others truly valued human life, they would make sure that there was adequate health care, a livable working wage, an education system that would not leave the unlucky to learn by memorization (teaching to the test) and not real critical thinking skills, that there would be affordable housing and adequate housing, that no one would be going to bed hungry, that our soldiers would have adequate pay and armament. . . in short that citizens' lives would be valued.
What is next--protecting the pre-pregnant from any action that might harm a future fetus?
Thank goodness that I am in a surgically induced menopause. I wonder if that procedure, which saved me from bleeding to death, might be outlawed since it made it impossible for me to be a vessel for a fetus.
The unborn fetus, not yet a citizen, has the right to life according to the five males who voted in the majority on the Supreme Court in Gonzales v Carhart [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf].
I hold them in contempt of women. These five men justify their position because some women might become, though they find "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon...that women may regret their choice to abort...[and thus suffer] Severe depression and loss of self esteem." (p.29) There may be a reason why there is no reliable data--granted some women will be saddened by making this decision, they will be able to in the future have children should they wish.
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority states that performing the intact Dilation and Extraction, a " procedure which is laden with the power to devalue human life" (p.28 of the brief), in fact devalues the woman's life in favor of the fetus. The law that prohibits (a type of ) abortion that has no exceptions to protect the woman's health or life. Their reasoning: the "intact D & E" aborted fetus looks like a baby. . .
IF lawmakers and others truly valued human life, they would make sure that there was adequate health care, a livable working wage, an education system that would not leave the unlucky to learn by memorization (teaching to the test) and not real critical thinking skills, that there would be affordable housing and adequate housing, that no one would be going to bed hungry, that our soldiers would have adequate pay and armament. . . in short that citizens' lives would be valued.
What is next--protecting the pre-pregnant from any action that might harm a future fetus?
Thank goodness that I am in a surgically induced menopause. I wonder if that procedure, which saved me from bleeding to death, might be outlawed since it made it impossible for me to be a vessel for a fetus.
