So I've gotten to the halfway point in The War on Choice...for the most part, what I have read has sat well with me.
That was up until a day or two ago when I came across a few passages concerning the right to abortion for people who are underage. I am seriously conflicted on this one.
I can completely understand the need for parental guidance on this issue, but I'm also not sure if requiring parental permission is crossing the line and infringing on the rights of the young woman who may be forced to bear the child. I am on the fence with this issue. To the point where I've been asking people about it all day, and haven't been able to get it off my mind.
A friend of mine brought up a really interesting point to me, saying that underage teens should actually be required to have their parents' permission to keep the baby. On the grounds that the parents would be the only financially stable people in the infant's life, and should therefore be able to choose whether or not they wish to support the new child...if the parents do not wish to support the child, they can choose to abort it. That argument actually brings up a lot of interesting points that I didn't think about until now. Like, if the pregnant minor is the one who wants to keep the child, but the parents don't, then who has the right to choose?
Whatever. The point being is that this friend of mine thinks the parents should be the deciders of whether their pregnant minor can keep the child or not. Using the above example...if that makes sense. Which it does in a roundabout way.
So people: what are your stances on this very important issue????? I really want to see how others view this topic *although I am not asking to be persuaded...simply asking for input*
Hop to it! Let's see some comments
endpost.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The War On Choice: Discussion 2
Over the past couple of days, I've been trying to write down any interesting quotes, facts that I'm not sure about, and new information I have learned from The War on Choice.
I've been flying through the book and I'm already almost halfway done because I have enjoyed it so much.
Writing things down as I read them has helped me to absorb more information, or at least given me the opportunity to recall anything that I may have forgotten in my haste to move on to the next topic.
Below is one particular quote that I found to be of immense interest. The reason for this is that I am unsure of how much truth it holds, or whether or not the truth is being stretched here...
Read below::
"...in many religions, as I discuss below, the fetus is not considered a person until it has either "quickened'...or grown to viability-- the stage of which it could survive outside the woman's body."
When I mentioned earlier about my confusion over this statement, I was referencing the disbelief I have that this is the actual belief of any religion. As I understand it for many religions, or at least Catholicism, life begins at the moment of conception, not the moment of fertilization (I'm still not sure I even understand the difference between these two...) and not at quickening or viability stages. Quickening meaning when the mother begins to feel the child within the womb (ie- kicking) and viability is the stage at which the fetus can survive outside of the womb (primarily after the third trimester).
The quote above just seems ideally left-wing in a society that is almost completely right-wing where religion is concerned.
So, readers...wherever you are...if you can answer my questions: feel free. My main concern being which religions did Feldt mean in the above quote??
If I don't get a response, no worries- I'll answer the question for you.
Here's to next time!
endpost.
I've been flying through the book and I'm already almost halfway done because I have enjoyed it so much.
Writing things down as I read them has helped me to absorb more information, or at least given me the opportunity to recall anything that I may have forgotten in my haste to move on to the next topic.
Below is one particular quote that I found to be of immense interest. The reason for this is that I am unsure of how much truth it holds, or whether or not the truth is being stretched here...
Read below::
"...in many religions, as I discuss below, the fetus is not considered a person until it has either "quickened'...or grown to viability-- the stage of which it could survive outside the woman's body."
When I mentioned earlier about my confusion over this statement, I was referencing the disbelief I have that this is the actual belief of any religion. As I understand it for many religions, or at least Catholicism, life begins at the moment of conception, not the moment of fertilization (I'm still not sure I even understand the difference between these two...) and not at quickening or viability stages. Quickening meaning when the mother begins to feel the child within the womb (ie- kicking) and viability is the stage at which the fetus can survive outside of the womb (primarily after the third trimester).
The quote above just seems ideally left-wing in a society that is almost completely right-wing where religion is concerned.
So, readers...wherever you are...if you can answer my questions: feel free. My main concern being which religions did Feldt mean in the above quote??
If I don't get a response, no worries- I'll answer the question for you.
Here's to next time!
endpost.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The War On Choice: Day 1
So I've decided that in order to keep this blog more active, I will make posts about books I am reading AS I am reading them.
I'm not sure how well this will work, but I'm very bad at summarizing things after-the-fact. I feel like writing about my readings this way will give me less to think about and therefore, give me the chance to be more concise...
Today I started a book by Gloria Feldt entitled The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back
Off the bat, I am taken in with the stories and passionate writing-style of Gloria Feldt. I would actually like to do some research on her, and discover whether or not she is more one-sided than she would obviously like her readers to believe.
The reason I am reading this book is because I have decided to re-explore my feelings and opinions on feminism. In truth, I barely even have actual opinions on the issues. I feel strongly about a good many things, but I do so without the proper background knowledge. This lack of knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable and unsure of myself. Therefore, I am trying to be as wary as possible about this book (for now,at least) in order to keep a diplomatic opinion on the issues. As much as I would love to believe everything that Feldt has to say, I feel that in order to be true to feminism, I must be true to myself and not automatically eat up what others are providing. At least not without some research.
One strongly worded sentence written in the book's Intro by Sally Blackmun really really stood out for me.
"Since 1986, the wind has continued to blow ever harder-- with each new legislative erosion of the right to choose, each federal judge that President Bush has appointed, each attempt to give rights to the fetus at the expense of the woman carrying it."
This simple sentence helped me put into words my very basic feelings on abortion and the woman's right to choose. I have always felt confused and torn on the issue of abortion, instinctively wanting to protect the unborn. I am pro-choice and have always been such. That sentence has made me feel less confused and more sure of myself on this issue. On a very basic level, many issues concerning women's reproductive rights are as simple as this: the woman's absolute right to choose. No one can determine whose life holds more value, the mother or the child, but it is up to the mother to decide the fate of herself and her unborn. As sad as that is, it is the truth and the right.
Another very obvious point written in the book, something which has actually never even crossed my mind is the idea that mostly older men are the ones who are deciding what laws should be made concerning women and their bodies. This decision should be made by none but the individual woman. Not detached old men who make choices based on church falsities and propoganda. The book pointing this out to me really shed light on how terribly easy it is for a complete stranger to take my rights away from me. Someone who does not know me and does not care about me. These men do not care about the women they affect, nor do they give second thoughts to the unborn children they have set out to "save."
I strongly support the idea of adopting out unwanted children. But those who make it to adoption centers are the lucky few. Those who are actually adopted are even luckier. There is no lack of children on this earth, unwanted or no. Who can condone allowing for more?
That sounds callous.
That's why I need to keep reading....
hah.
endpost.
I'm not sure how well this will work, but I'm very bad at summarizing things after-the-fact. I feel like writing about my readings this way will give me less to think about and therefore, give me the chance to be more concise...
Today I started a book by Gloria Feldt entitled The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back
Off the bat, I am taken in with the stories and passionate writing-style of Gloria Feldt. I would actually like to do some research on her, and discover whether or not she is more one-sided than she would obviously like her readers to believe.
The reason I am reading this book is because I have decided to re-explore my feelings and opinions on feminism. In truth, I barely even have actual opinions on the issues. I feel strongly about a good many things, but I do so without the proper background knowledge. This lack of knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable and unsure of myself. Therefore, I am trying to be as wary as possible about this book (for now,at least) in order to keep a diplomatic opinion on the issues. As much as I would love to believe everything that Feldt has to say, I feel that in order to be true to feminism, I must be true to myself and not automatically eat up what others are providing. At least not without some research.
One strongly worded sentence written in the book's Intro by Sally Blackmun really really stood out for me.
"Since 1986, the wind has continued to blow ever harder-- with each new legislative erosion of the right to choose, each federal judge that President Bush has appointed, each attempt to give rights to the fetus at the expense of the woman carrying it."
This simple sentence helped me put into words my very basic feelings on abortion and the woman's right to choose. I have always felt confused and torn on the issue of abortion, instinctively wanting to protect the unborn. I am pro-choice and have always been such. That sentence has made me feel less confused and more sure of myself on this issue. On a very basic level, many issues concerning women's reproductive rights are as simple as this: the woman's absolute right to choose. No one can determine whose life holds more value, the mother or the child, but it is up to the mother to decide the fate of herself and her unborn. As sad as that is, it is the truth and the right.
Another very obvious point written in the book, something which has actually never even crossed my mind is the idea that mostly older men are the ones who are deciding what laws should be made concerning women and their bodies. This decision should be made by none but the individual woman. Not detached old men who make choices based on church falsities and propoganda. The book pointing this out to me really shed light on how terribly easy it is for a complete stranger to take my rights away from me. Someone who does not know me and does not care about me. These men do not care about the women they affect, nor do they give second thoughts to the unborn children they have set out to "save."
I strongly support the idea of adopting out unwanted children. But those who make it to adoption centers are the lucky few. Those who are actually adopted are even luckier. There is no lack of children on this earth, unwanted or no. Who can condone allowing for more?
That sounds callous.
That's why I need to keep reading....
hah.
endpost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
