http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4876725.html
This one has made it around the feminist blogosphere. The link above is to the Houston Chronicle version of the AP article. The relevant words, straight from the senator’s mouth to the ears of the participants at a Catholic men’s conference, "Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?"
Unlike the senator, I will not presume to speak for all women. Some women would choose to carry such a pregnancy to term and it is their right to do so. Were I to ever be so unfortunate to be pregnant as the result of rape, I know how I would feel. No, aborting a very much unwanted pregnancy would not “solve the problem.” However, being reminded of the rape everyday for nine months would make the problem far, far worse and the healing process even longer than it already would be. Since the senator never has been and never can be pregnant, maybe he does not realize the sacrifices and dangers of pregnancy. Rape is the act of using another person’s body for your own ends without their consent. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is using another’s body for your own ends without their consent.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm
Mitt Romney might have recently seen the light on a woman’s right to choose, though it is highly doubtful. That has certainly not always been the case. Follow the link and read the interview for yourself. The upshot is that a Mormon woman was pregnant (pregnancy number 6) and was told she needed to terminate the pregnancy due to blood clots. The woman decided to terminate the pregnancy, and her decision was backed by her stake president, who was a doctor. As stake president he outranked Romney in the church. When the good Bishop Romney came to the woman’s bedside, she expected him to offer comfort and support, because that was his role as Bishop. Instead he condemned her decision. Fortunately, the woman was smart enough to ignore his “counseling.” She terminated the pregnancy and left the church.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/13/murio-por-ser-pobre-y-por-ser-mujer/#more-5060
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200706/20070611.html
Abortion death scroll down to part 3
Link to donate
http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/proj_laicia.html
Some anti-choicers, for an example see the American Life League at http://www.all.org, will try to tell you that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the women. Would it be stating the obvious to say such people are delusional? If she were still alive, I would tell you ask Martha Solay if abortion were ever necessary to save a woman’s life. Ms. Solay died of uterine cancer this week. When she was first diagnosed, she was unable to treat the cancer because she was pregnant, and abortion was completely illegal in Colombia. While it is impossible to say with any certainty that earlier treatment would have saved Ms. Solay’s life, it is quite certain that denying her the chance was monstrous and inhumane.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0608mr-fetus0609.html
Well, ladies, we can now say we know our worth. No, we are not more precious than rubies. The precious seven week’s gestation embryo of Monica Sanchez was killed in September of 2005 when Ms. Sanchez was struck by her boyfriend. Oh, incidentally, the embryo carrier Ms. Sanchez was also killed in the attack. Her boyfriend was sentenced to 16 years in prison for Ms. Sanchez’s death and 20 years for the embryo. Yes, ladies, it’s official, anti-choicers value the life of an actual living woman 80% as much as they value the precious embryo.
1 comment:
It's important to keep in mind here that the appropriate contrast is not between the woman and the fetus.
See the last paragraph of a local reporter's coverage published June 8, 2007 at http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/0608mr-fetus0609.html#
and note this passage: "Gurrola's sentencing was postponed in March while lawyers investigated whether the state's tough Dangerous Crimes Against Children statute applied. The statute requires significantly longer sentences."
In other words, a tough law intended to protect children was brought into play.
This implies that the killing of both a mother and her toddler in Arizona would have led to a similar disparity in sentencing. Further, we may presume that if a pregnant mother and her toddler were killed, the deaths of the fetus and the toddler would apparently have led to the same sentencing for the convict. Most important of all possible contrasts, we should note that the disparity would apparently apply to the killing of a father and toddler or fetus in Arizona in just the same way. [Imagine a drunk driver striking the car of a vacationing family with the result that the father dies and the mother miscarries.]
This still highlights a disparity of value, but it seems the gap arises due to an aggressive law intended to deter harm to children. The interesting point is that this sentencing decision in Arizona sets yet another precedent for treating a fetus as a live-born child.
Such precedents do embody an injustice of great consequence (imho). However, this problem is a slightly different one than this issue's inclusion in the post "A Woman's Worth" portrays. In order to fight injustice, it seems imperative that we see injustice clearly, just as it is, and not as what it is not. We must be more thorough, more thoughtful, and more accurate than those who promote or tolerate unjustices. We must read past the disturbing headline to the last paragraph -- always.
Post a Comment