Help us raise some funds to help women in Kentucky get the healthcare they need!Read More
Recently a candidate for the US presidency made some horrifically ignorant and dismissive statements about 3rd trimester abortions. In response, several women stepped up and told their stories online about their late term abortions. I read some of them, and it got me thinking.
The pro-life movement likes to frame abortion in terms of morality. I’m not altogether in disagreement with them, even though I draw incredibly different conclusions. I think first trimester abortions are a no-brainer, since they generally happen before the blastocyst/embryo/fetus has developed anything that could be termed ‘personhood.’ However, I have in the past been on the fence about whether or not abortions in the third trimester should be legal. But now I have made up my mind.
Consider this situation. A woman is pregnant and is going to to doctor for her 7 month appointment. At this appointment, it is discovered that something is wrong and that child has developed a condition that makes it impossible for it to ever live outside the womb –assuming it even survives to term. Do you think it is morally acceptable to deny this woman the opportunity to choose for herself and her unborn child whether she should abort or to try and go to term?
If you think that denying this woman the choice (maybe even the information that would make the choice possible) is morally permissible, then your morality is clearly very different from mine.
Essentially, the recent news and stories have affirmed to me that yes, abortion should be legal in all trimesters. The right to choose is vital, and moral.
EDIT: Just in case anyone thinks that scenarios such as the hypothetical one I described is unrealistic, check out this story. This is only one true-life scenario, but there are many others like it. Why This Woman Chose Abortion—at 29 WeeksRead More
Since I have discussed abortion access on this blog before. I am afraid some of my readers may think that just because abortion is legal in America since Roe v. Wade, that the fight for women’s right to autonomy and healthcare is over and we can just relax. Having a right to something means absolutely nothing if you do not have access.
State Representative Bubba Carpenter recently told a group of local county Republicans that “We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi,” and that “the other side [is] like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.’ That’s what we’ve heard over and over and over. But hey, you have to have moral values.”
I hope I am not the only one who finds this quote shocking. When your moral values include forcing desperate women to unsafe and unsanitary medical procedures because that is the only way they can access them, you might need to rethink the basis of your morality.
I hadn’t been in a couple of months, but yesterday I decided to get up early to escort at the clinic. Thursday was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, so the issue of choice and personal freedom was on my mind. After not being there for a while the scene was especially eery, or maybe that was the fog from the river. It’s easy to forget about the gauntlet these women are forced to run in order to go to the doctor.Read More
This morning at the clinic was SNAFU, as always. There were actually more protesters than usual, including a busload from the Kentucky Mountain Bible College, and a Catholic procession (assuming from the rosaries) who came late on the sidewalk opposite the clinic.Read More