Amanda titles the post "Take my uterus, please," and maybe that would be the best option for her, given her philosophy that all abortion restrictions are because men hate women and they want to force women to have babies.
My favorite comment, though, was this one:
I personally believe that a woman should be allowed to have whatever’s in her uterus removed at any point, any point, in her pregnancy. Even if she’d give birth the next day. For whatever reason. If she decides that after 9 months less one day, being pregnant any longer will muss her nailpolish and she no longer wants to be pregnant, then she should be able to end her pregnancy.
It's always a good idea to keep in mind exactly what the "choice" in "pro-choice" is all about. In this case, it is trivializing the lives of babies and comparing them with changing nailpolish.
I think the point is that, if a woman were to be so obnoxiously and offensively self-centered as to do that, her *right* to do it should be preserved. That's not the same thing as endorsing the notion that she *should* do it.
ReplyDeletePeople have a legal right to engage in all sorts of atrocious behavior. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be socially condemned for it; just that that condemnation should not come in the form of state sanction.
I know what the point is, but the fact is that laws and morality don't allow us to do every self-centered thing we desire simply because we desire to do so. Our laws are designed to protect both the individual liberty and the societal goals. In this case, I found it very telling that someone would defend killing an innocent life because of nail polish. But I'd bet the same person would be outraged if an individual didn't dispose of his/her motor oil properly.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the idea of giving up a 39 week, six day gestation "fetus" for adoption would be out of the question, huh?
ReplyDelete