Monday, June 14, 2010

Poor choicers question the word "choice"

Says Not Guilty at Abortion Gang:

A choice to terminate a pregnancy implies that one must be pregnant before one gets that choice. A right to terminate a pregnancy implies that every woman has that right, regardless of whether they ever become pregnant. I believe that moving towards the language of the right to abort would be of great benefit for the pro-choice movement. In everyday life, we are confronted with endless choices. The common thread is that most choices have limits placed on them by the government. There are limits on who you may choose as a sexual partner, specifically the other person must be a consenting adult. You may choose to drive, but you must be licensed and you must follow the rules of the road. Our everyday choices are qualified for the safety of society and nobody questions that.

When abortion is framed as a choice, it naturally follows that, as with all other choices, the choice to abort may be qualified.


I realize that I am extracting Canadian law and applying it to the “informed choice” laws of the United States, but I believe the principle crosses borders: rights should not be arbitrarily restricted. Abortion is a part of the right of a woman to control her reproduction. Just as it is unacceptable to put arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or speech, it should be considered unacceptable to put such arbitrary restrictions on abortion access in the name of informed choice. Ultrasound laws, parental notification laws, and mandatory waiting periods do not inform the choice to abort, they restrict the right to control one’s reproduction.

But so-called "abortion rights" conflict with other rights. Parental rights. The right to informed consent.

How interesting that she feels these are "arbitrary" restrictions on abortion rights.

And here's another interesting right that abortion conflicts with: the right to life. The right to life trumps other rights every time.

When the humanity of the person being killed is recognized.

That's why abortion is framed solely as a medical operation. Don't like an abortion? Don't have one!

See, the choice is the right. (Actually, it's really a freedom). So it all boils down to the same thing.

What this lady is trying to advocate is for complete, unrestricted freedom to kill a fetus at any time. And she's trying to find the language to frame that policy choice.

The thing is, there are no rights that are not subjected to some kind of restriction.

The only way to really press for complete freedom on abortion is to advocate for feminist supremacy, which is what is done in Canada: feminist rights, especially those to abortion, trump all other rights and considerations.

Of course, nobody really likes that. You can't believe in equality and feminist supremacy.