Spring Break
The freedom of irresponsibility
Mary Jo Newport | Guest Columnist
Issue date: 3/30/09 Section: Opinion
I have to wonder: if you take out the debate of religion, political party affiliated nonsense, stem cell research, etc., and just look at abortion itself, how many of you are "sincerely" die-hard pro-abortion?
The article by Stephen Ontko regarding "infanticide" was so filled with political brouhaha that it makes me want to be pro-choice, and I am not. I used to be extremely pro-choice in my younger days. Part of that was from the influence my grandmother had on me through her stories about back-alley abortions gone wrong. I felt confident with my pro-choice stance up until the last few years, after researching what Roe v. Wade was about, and how the Supreme Court seemed to "rationalize" their ruling.
What I know about Roe v. Wade is that right to privacy, apparently under due process of law, was cited for the mother. Viability was the issue for the Supreme Court's decision to rule against the fetus' right to life, which is normally protected by the Constitution. Viability was defined as the ability for the fetus to live outside of the birth mother's womb, albeit with technology. There are three reasons why I have changed my mind:
1.) The viability of an embryo/fetus has seen drastic technological advancements (i.e. Stem cell research, test tube babies, birth control options, medical capability) since the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Thus, Roe v. Wade should also be protecting the embryo/fetus' right to life because they are viable outside the birth mother's womb at earlier stages, albeit with technology.
2.) I not only believe in the mother's rights to due process of law, but I also believe in the father's right of due process of law. It is blight to all fathers' rights in America that they have no say. Why are only the mother's rights considered?
3.) The last reason I have is that there are many more options now to avoid pregnancy. The freedom of choice to have sex is solely on each individual. With freedoms come responsibilities. If you are "responsible" enough to have sex, then you are equally "responsible" enough to either have a child or take measures to avoid becoming pregnant.
You can avoid pregnancy by three means I can think of: birth control before sex (patches, shots, pills); birth control during sex (condoms) and birth control after sex (morning after pills).
There is no reason why someone should have an unwanted pregnancy. How many unwanted pregnancies would honestly occur if these birth control options were used? Obviously, there may be some circumstances involving crimes or health issues that are exceptions to all rules.
At two through eight weeks, a fetus has produced neurons that begin to feel pain, just like you or me. Playing dumb about sex and birth control methods after you find out you screwed up is no reason to continue this atrociously painful method of killing known as abortion.
Mary Jo Newport is a freshman pre-nursing major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
The article by Stephen Ontko regarding "infanticide" was so filled with political brouhaha that it makes me want to be pro-choice, and I am not. I used to be extremely pro-choice in my younger days. Part of that was from the influence my grandmother had on me through her stories about back-alley abortions gone wrong. I felt confident with my pro-choice stance up until the last few years, after researching what Roe v. Wade was about, and how the Supreme Court seemed to "rationalize" their ruling.
What I know about Roe v. Wade is that right to privacy, apparently under due process of law, was cited for the mother. Viability was the issue for the Supreme Court's decision to rule against the fetus' right to life, which is normally protected by the Constitution. Viability was defined as the ability for the fetus to live outside of the birth mother's womb, albeit with technology. There are three reasons why I have changed my mind:
1.) The viability of an embryo/fetus has seen drastic technological advancements (i.e. Stem cell research, test tube babies, birth control options, medical capability) since the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Thus, Roe v. Wade should also be protecting the embryo/fetus' right to life because they are viable outside the birth mother's womb at earlier stages, albeit with technology.
2.) I not only believe in the mother's rights to due process of law, but I also believe in the father's right of due process of law. It is blight to all fathers' rights in America that they have no say. Why are only the mother's rights considered?
3.) The last reason I have is that there are many more options now to avoid pregnancy. The freedom of choice to have sex is solely on each individual. With freedoms come responsibilities. If you are "responsible" enough to have sex, then you are equally "responsible" enough to either have a child or take measures to avoid becoming pregnant.
You can avoid pregnancy by three means I can think of: birth control before sex (patches, shots, pills); birth control during sex (condoms) and birth control after sex (morning after pills).
There is no reason why someone should have an unwanted pregnancy. How many unwanted pregnancies would honestly occur if these birth control options were used? Obviously, there may be some circumstances involving crimes or health issues that are exceptions to all rules.
At two through eight weeks, a fetus has produced neurons that begin to feel pain, just like you or me. Playing dumb about sex and birth control methods after you find out you screwed up is no reason to continue this atrociously painful method of killing known as abortion.
Mary Jo Newport is a freshman pre-nursing major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 9
Jamie Bloss
posted 3/30/09 @ 2:14 PM EST
I agree that there are so many options for birth control these days that people have almost no reason not to take necessary responsibility, and easily prevent unwanted pregnancies. (Continued…)
Bonnie Kleinke
posted 3/30/09 @ 4:23 PM EST
The only form of birth control that works 100% of the time is total abstinence. Condoms can fail, birth control pills can be ineffective if you are taking medications such as antibiotics and these are two of the most effective forms of birth control. (Continued…)
KSU alum
posted 3/30/09 @ 5:48 PM EST
Many individuals lack access to reliable birth control. In my community, the family planning clinic was shuttered due to funding issues. This left teens and low-income women with few viable options. (Continued…)
Mary Jo
posted 3/30/09 @ 11:23 PM EST
Jamie Bloss: I can understand the lack of trust you would have with legislation because as we all know; sometimes the legislation isn't very good. But, as far as the "reproductive rights" you seem to be talking about; I don't see how limiting the time(say to between 2-6 weeks at the most) that a person has to make a decision as "telling them what to do" or taking away those rights. (Continued…)
KK
posted 3/31/09 @ 9:29 PM EST
I recommend reading Margaret Sanger's autobiography. Although, you will site your argument about increased resources available to women, it might give you an increased incite on this topic. (Continued…)
Post a Comment