[Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops) Hangs in the Balance

[Donovan Arnold]

Nick,
  
 I find it interesting that you  believe so much in a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus, or  another developing human, but yet at the same time oppose her right to  shop at a store of her choosing, like Wal-Mart. 
  
  It just seems ironic, doesn't it?
  
  Mind you, I am opposed to legally preventing abortion. But if I had to  prioritize limiting a women's right to choice, it would be to limit her  options to a kill a developing human being over that of where she buys  hamburger buns.
  
  Thoughts?
  
  -DJA
  
  
  

Nick Gier <ngier at uidaho.edu> wrote:    Greetings:

  Before this goes out to the usual venues, I wanted Visionaries to have  a first read if they wish.  If you find typos or more substantial  points to debate, let me know.  I'm glad that I can spell that  last phrase better than Doug Farris.

  A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE HANGS IN THE  BALANCE

  By Nick Gier

  
          During  his confirmation hearings many Americans were relieved to hear that  John Roberts believes that the Constitution contains a right to  privacy.  He also considers Roe vs. Wade to be “settled  law.”  In recent hearings to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the  Supreme Court, Samuel Alito agreed with Roberts on the first point but  not on the second.

 O’Connor is the author of the significant  proviso “no undue burden,” which limits the state’s power to restrict a  woman’s right to choose.  In one decision O’Connor ruled that it  was indeed an “undue burden” that a woman must get her husband’s  permission to have an abortion.  In a dissent in the 3rd  District Court of Appeals Judge Alito argued that any state has a right  to require a woman to do just that.

  A right of privacy is not specifically granted in the Constitution, but  it is strongly implied therein.  Americans have an inalienable  right to hold their own beliefs, to act according to the dictates of  their own consciences, and the “right . . . to be secure in their  persons, houses, papers, and effects. . . ” (4th Amendment). The right  of privacy follows from the basic American belief that people are  autonomous beings, which means that they have a right to determine  their own lives without government interference. 

 During the  Alito hearings there was grandstanding from both sides of the aisle,  but the worst offender was Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.  Coburn  repeatedly said that the science of fetal development should compel the  Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. To bolster his  argument Coburn added he had delivered 4,000 babies in his career as an  obstetrician.

  I’ve taught over 6,000 students and I hope that they have better  reasoning skills than the good senator.  Coburn stated that the  early fetus has brain waves and a heart beat, but animal fetuses have  these as well.  What makes humans morally and legally different  from animals is that they are persons, not just biological  entities.  

 Our moral, religious, and legal tradition has  held that persons are rational beings, who are able to determine their  own lives significantly different from the ways they guide their  children or control their animals.  Several footnotes to Roe vs. Wade  reference this long tradition, and I believe that the justices had  sufficient reason to rule that the early fetus is not a person.

  At the beginning of the third trimester, the fetal brain undergoes  explosive brain development. At 25 weeks the brain cells are very  poorly connected and the neocortex, the center of higher brain  function, is undeveloped.  At 33 weeks those same cells have  thousands of connections and the neocortex has the six layers of the  mature brain.  

 This brain is significantly different  from most animal brains, which can form the physical basis for  protecting the legal rights of a “beginning person,” a being with a  serious moral right to life.  This argument is far superior to  fetal viability, a criterion that, as Senator Coburn pointed out, is  vulnerable to technological advances in preserving the lives of  premature fetuses. Fetal brain development will not change except for  major and immoral genetic engineering.

 My argument gives  expectant mothers the same six months’ freedom from state interference  but with a stronger legal foundation. The is also a nice logical  symmetry between starting a person's life at this point and then  legally ending it when the brain no longer functions. It’s also  imperative to note that 88 percent of all American abortions occur  within 13 weeks of conception, long before any major elements of a  person's life develops.

 Anti-abortionists claim that abortion  causes health problems for women who submit to them.  These same  people, however, do very little to support the social services and  accurate information that would make abortions safer, earlier, and  rarer, as is the case in most other industrialized countries.  For  example, in Belgium and the Netherlands there are 7 abortions per 1,000  women as opposed to 23 per 1,000 in the U.S.

 The most  horrendous effects on female health are found in countries that do not  allow reproductive freedom, and the Bush administration’s restrictions  on family planning in foreign aid are making this problem worse.   With a little over half the population, Brazilian women have more  abortions than American women do. Eastern Europe has the highest rate  in the world: a staggering 90 unsafe abortions per 1,000 women.   Generally speaking, the rate of abortion appears to be directly  proportional to the restrictions placed on sex education and  reproductive freedom.

  As we acknowledge the  33rd  anniversary of Roe vs. Wade  on January 22, we should heed the heed the results of a recent Harris  Poll: 70 percent said that they would oppose Alito if he intends to  overturn this landmark decision. The choice for America is clear.   We can continue to protect a woman’s right to determine her own life,  or we can deny her this right and force her to face unhealthy and  sometimes deadly alternatives to safe, legal abortions. 

  Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for  31 years.  For more on the topic see  www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/abortion.htm.

  _____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯



		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060118/8419911c/attachment-0001.htm