Reframing the abortion debate

[Sivafae]

Whilst on another board, I began to question a few things about the current abortion/war on women issues that have been troubling us of late. As I began to formulate questions, something occurred to me, we need to reframe the debate. Here is a part of my post that starts to address this issue:

"I think the even larger issue and danger that comes from this whole attack on abortion, is something that affects everyone, not just women. In that, if there is a medical procedure that the state thinks is morally wrong, but medically safe and possibly medically necessary (let the doctor decide right?), can the state basically regulate it into non-existence simply because it does not morally agree with it? I find this whole attack on abortion a rather slippery slope because if one safe medical or medically necessary procedure can be regulated based on tendentious morality, what safe medical procedure or treatment is next?"

There has always been an argument of access to safe medical care in the abortion debate, but it seems to me that it has not been in the forefront of the argument. Now that there have been calls for personhood of zygotes, birth control has been under attack. Sandra Fluke was right to stand up and talk about birth control, because access to birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy. Already we are starting down this slippery slope.

My point is that we, as in men and women in a combined effort, need to start taking this as access to safe medical care without tendentious morality policing from the government. Don't get me wrong, I believe this to be a woman's issue. But I think it would be a much more successful argument if it was reframed as an issue of access to medical care for everyone, not just women.

Discuss.

[Coexist]

1. I think it's a very well thought out argument

nice work.

[niyad]

2. very good argument, not forgetting the fact that the anti-choice debate is ALL about controlling

women, hating them. one does wonder, will the next attack be on mammograms?

(note to woman-hating fundies and repukes: if you kill off all the women, who is going to produce your cannon fodder and do all the scut work?)

[unblock]

3. i agree that the role of government is something poorly debated, despite citing our "founders"

the question often is, "should government have this power" or "should government step in in this situation".

our founders frequently thought and spoke and wrote in such terms.

today, beyond vague "states' rights" or "small government" sloganeering, there's not much in the way of real debate in such terms.


personally, i think this is a way out of a number of tough issues.

abortion is one of them -- should government essentially criminalize something about which there is nowhere near universal agreement as to its morality? essentially EVERYONE agrees the murder and robbery and assault and so on ought to be crimes, but there's nowhere near that level or societal agreement regarding abortion.

voting rights for felons and ex-felons is another area, and a pet peeve of mine. no matter how despicable a person is, i feel the NO government ought to have the power to disenfranchise their subjects, if only because that government obviously has a lot to do in determining which laws strip away voting rights and how (selectively) they are enforced.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Ooooohhhhh...that is good.

I love it, and I wish I thought of it.