Pro-Choice Blogging Day
I can't wait for Pro-Choice Blogging Day (January 28th, 2008) so I'm doing my entry now.
I realized something about the abortion debate today (in a strictly legal sense) that I think gets to the crux of the matter for Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers alike. (I use Pro-Life as opposed to Anti-Choice because, even though Anti-Choice is more accurate than Pro-Life, Pro-Life is the going term.)
Here it is: Pro-Life political activists do not recognize intent as relevant to the matter of reproductive rights for women. Which means that their logic runs entirely counter to the spirit of the law. Intent matters in our justice system. A lot. Some might argue it's the essential tenet of it.
But to Pro-Lifers, women who have no intent to conceive are as liable for conception as women who do. And liability is the correct term to use in the matter of conception because for women who have no intent to conceive, conception is a liability. Unless it isn't. In which case a woman is quite free to choose to carry on with the pregnancy.
But Pro-Lifers want a State that can demand a woman who had no intent to conceive carry the pregnancy to term - such that she is, in fact, a de facto birth vessel for the State with no rights over her own person simply (or not so simply) because a sperm fertilized one of her ovules.
That, Dear Reader, is not how our society, our legal system, or any Democracy worth its salt, operates.