Here again, Pastor Hickey (at Voices Carry) and I will disagree, but as he’s called my logic flawed, I’ll call him back. I’m sorry if my discussion here doesn’t match up with Planned Parenthood’s “talking points,” but I haven’t read them, though Hickey accuses me of parroting them.
I’m simply a woman who has lived life and made good choices and bad ones, and I prefer to own my own body, not have it enslaved to the state or religious groups or a partner or husband or anyone else. Initiated Measure 11 is a slave law, and its implication is that women’s bodies are not their own.
As part of his argument that abortion is wrong, Hickey states the following as a basis (borrowed from Francis Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Jurisprudence at Baylor):
The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
No. In order to be a full-fledged member of the human community, one must function and/or fulfill some role in that community. A fetus does not. A blastocyst most certainly does not.
The eligibility of that fetus to become a full member of the human community, barring unforeseen complications, gets decided by its mother. And that’s been considered the good and natural thing and right thing for thousands of years because she’s the one who has the most responsibility to guide and feed and take care of that member of the human community.
If you want to say that the moment of conception is the moment when a person is formed, why not go back further? Start saving your sperm in the freezer, Hickey–every one is precious! We’d better start monthly mourning sessions, too, for every egg that goes unfertilized in every fourteen-year-old girl who’s not having babies one on top of another, wearing out her body to deliver “God’s Gifts” into the world.
I know it’s hard for some to accept that women have this awesome power of decision making over their own bodies and fertility, but the reason they have that awesome power is that they have that awesome responsibility.
Though Hickey claims there’s no study to prove (as I said in my earlier post) that abortion bans reduce the number of abortions, there is, in fact, a World Health Organization Study that says just that:
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.” [Rosenthal New York Times 12 October 2007]
However, if an abortion ban did reduce the numbers of abortions, as Hickey believes, it would simply increase the numbers of unwanted children, as well as poverty rates, need for social services, and a higher tax burden. Sounds like a great society to me….