Another Look at Roe V. Wade.

he whole abortion issue has been for the most part misrepresented equally by both political wings (left and right). Liberals decry any assault to a woman’s right to choose, lambasting those who dare, as anti-woman, and conservatives lament abortion as a whole, citing religious dogma. At first, under the deluge of right-wing doctrine spouted by a multitude of ideologues (Limbaugh, Hannity, ect.), I adopted a pro-life stance until entering a period of moderation (my “enlightenment”). Later on, I assented a woman’s right to choose, however, I still quarreled with the undisclosed amorphously defined notion of a human being, as well as questioned ‘at what point are American human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?

After this latest round of “breaking news” showcasing (the setting-up of) a prominent member of planned parenthood jubilantly discussing the trade of deleted fetus parts, I must finally make my voice heard regarding this whole convoluted issue.

First, Roe V. Wade currently is, and has never been (to the best of my knowledge), adequately interpreted. The whole premise of invoking Roe V. Wade and the right given to women to “choose” to terminate their pregnancies, before coming to term, is solely an expression of the rights it confers to women to choose this route legally. Roe V. Wade can then be construed as legislation in support of women’s rights, second to the passage of the 19th amendment, giving women the right to vote, ratified in 1919.

To be clear, I am an advocate for women’s rights and this piece, in no way, is meant to excoriate Roe V. Wade. I am taking issue with how this volatile and highly contested political topic has been inappropriately debated, thanks to the emotional fervor it arouses from both sides, thus hindering any logical and rational assessment of the underlying details comprising the matter.

I don’t pretend to be a constitutional scholar. I’m assessing this issue, being witness to how it’s played out in the media for the past 10 years. To me, Roe V. Wade is a women’s rights issue. Women have been, for the better part of human history, second, as far as social, and legal equality, as regards human rights, to men. The 19th amendment brought about the first major attempt to right this disparity. As any fan of Mad Men will know, equality for women (cultural and workplace roles) was severely lacking for nearly half a century after it’s passage. Today, there are still many documented cases where women are paid less than their male counterpart. And again, I believe this is wrong. As I digress..

Roe V. Wade, though failing to address sexual inequalities still rampant, did give women the power to make one of the most fundamental decisions a person (female) can make, that being, the choice to have a child (if able), and whether to carry that child (fetus) to term. Before hand, the criminality of abortion, and cultural influences prevalent at the time, stymied a woman’s ability to make such a fundamental choice. After the ruling, a woman no longer had to fear the possibility of facing prosecution for having an abortion and, though cultural influences continued their snails pace towards progress, a woman could covertly, without her partners consent or awareness, make that choice without fear of retribution (so to speak).

I have not read Roe V. Wade, nor want to, but I’m fairly certain that in legalizing abortion, it decriminalized the homicide of pre-term babies. Thus an imaginary line was drawn. On one side, if a human being is a fetus, it’s mother is the only individual allowed to revoke it’s human rights and legally snuff out its existence. On the other, if a human being is a fetus, and its mother has decided to uphold its unalienable human rights, and that fetus is murdered, for whatever reason, the persons responsible will be charged for violating its right to live and most likely be convicted accordingly.

Again, I reiterate the point that Roe V. Wade was more about a woman’s right to make a decision concerning (with respect to her pre-term baby) what constitutes human life and the rights it does or doesn’t possess. But shouldn’t a woman be able to make such choices?

In a mutual parental partnership between a man and woman, the woman is always considered the primary caregiver. In general, separation between the mother and father, usually results in the woman receiving the majority of custodial rights. Men today, still can bitch out of fatherhood and only worry about paying a percentage of their earnings for child support. Furthermore, women are the only ones to experience the (supposedly wondrous and profound) bond that is established with the child between conception and birth; this being a predominant reason why children tend to prefer the comfort of their mother as opposed to their father (or so I’ve been lead to believe). So your damn right, women should have the right to choose! “Well done, Sister Suffragette!” (in jest).

So what of it all? If abortion is legal, and women have sole rights in determining the viability of their conceived fetus(es), what fucking difference does it make if the tissue from disposed aborted fetuses is used to benefit medical science? (You would choose to undergo a novel effective treatment for your stage 4 cancer only developed through the use of and experimentation with, aborted fetal tissue (parts), wouldn’t you?) After all, the issue is not about what defines a human life, it is about (as stipulated by Roe V. Wade) the right a woman has to make the aforementioned choice.

Though I tend to lean more to the right, sans the religious baggage, I must say that attempts made by conservatives to gin up this issue are done in vain as the issue is moot. Not to mention, that poor woman was indeed set up by a few zealous individuals taking advantage of a situation where this woman was just conversing about the nature of her job.

GET REAL PEOPLE. STOP LETTING YOUR EMOTIONS OBFUSCATE YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE AN INFORMED, RATIONAL, AND LOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.