I should be using these post-class, pre-dinner hours to get crackin' on my reading for tomorrow. But, as a large chunk of that reading is in a book entitled Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, I'm going to take a few minutes to ramble around that. . . theme, because I feel the need to release some thoughts that will otherwise be distracting.
Firstly, I have thoughts about The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, but in their raw state in my head, they sound much less like "In a careful analysis of blahblah's argument . . ." and much more like "How dare they?!" Because (and bear with me as I work through this) I believe that NO ONE can tell me what I may and may not do with my body. They may not agree with my choices - they may make alternative suggestions - but at the end of the day, if I am going to do something to my body, whether that be as superficial a decision as getting a tattoo, or as horrible as shooting heroin, or as life-changing as getting an abortion: if I make my decision, I have the power to see it done. If I negatively affect others with my behavior - there are other considerations. If I break other kinds of laws in the course of my actions - there are other considerations. But on a very basic level, a doctor or medical professional should have no power to dictate what I may or may not do as regards my own health - it being, after all, my own. And by no means should those doctors have the power to shape legal limitations that affect me so much more profoundly than them. In one court case, an abortion ban was actually overturned because it infringed on the property rights of the doctor! The result seems favorable; the logic is astounding.
I think that some things, at the end of the day, truly are "women's business", not to the end of excluding men from the issue, but with the goal of giving women autonomy and control of something that is rightfully theirs: the use of their bodies. Can there be any right more "natural" (since you elitist old white men writing about legalities seem to like that concept) than control of one's body? What do you think, Thomas? George? James? John? Abe? Franklin? Lyndon . . . (never mind. I don't want to know what you thought about women's rights.)
Then there are just the sad inefficacies of legal prohibition as a means to an end. Prohibit alcohol, and more people go blind drinking whatever they've cooked up in their basements and barns. Declare "war on drugs" and black markets boom and cartels shoot innocent people in the streets. Maybe these aren't ideal examples, but this is the point: make abortion illegal, and women will resort to coathangers and knitting needles - mutilation either by self or by others. Sorry to burst your idealist bubbles, everybody, but making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. And while I know this sounds angry, and certain, and solid - please keep in mind (and this is directed at me as much as anyone) that I still have thinking and reading to do. Whether or not anything can shift my fundamental beliefs, there are countless nuances and variables and questions to which I don't have answers.
So I'll keep thinking about it. I got a book recommendation on the subject today - more reading that I might try to do over Thanksgiving week. We'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment