2003-01-22 - 10:26 p.m.

Thirty Years, Roe vs. Wade

Because it’s an anniversary, our local newspaper is featuring the Roe vs. Wade story again, with an article about “Roe,” who has rejoined the Catholic church and is now on “the other side.” There is, interestingly enough, little information about her not being the best subject for the test case. She gave up that one child for adoption and evidently never had another. She doesn’t seem to be successful at relationships.

As I’ve stated before, last January, I completely support the right of any woman to terminate a pregnancy. It’s not the perfect solution, but in some cases it’s the best we – that is, society – can do.

Our first priority here should be to prevent the pregnancy from occurring. That’s easier said than done, because there are many reasons why a woman becomes pregnant, many of them having absolutely nothing to do with maternal feelings. “Just say no” doesn’t work. (And no, I don’t believe any woman ever decided to have a child for the express purpose of collecting welfare.)

Let’s not forget all the laws, both religious and civil, that prohibited birth control and family planning. Today’s young women aren’t aware of the difficulties that abounded before the pill and before abortion was legally available. Amazingly enough, there are still women who don’t know how their bodies work and who know nothing about preventing pregnancy. (nor do some men) Can you learn from your mother, if she doesn’t know? Can you trust what you heard from a teacher who really isn’t interested in her subject or in you? The laws were written by men, who in most cases had political reasons for wanting a large birth rate. (…so that “my group” has more people than “your group”…)

When an unsuitable or unwanted pregnancy exists, society’s responsibility should be to ensure care for both mother and child. That means caring for the child for eighteen years, not just nine months. It also means protecting the mother from unsafe methods of abortion. If the mother is still a child, she also needs care until she is able to fend for herself in the world; if she also has sole responsibility for a child in addition, she probably won’t be able to do it.

So sometimes – to protect the mother from undue hardship, to protect the child from danger and abuse – the best solution may be to terminate the pregnancy. Both physically and emotionally, it is best done early, rather than debating the question for five months and then wondering whether the fetus might be viable.

For those who are willing to adopt the babies – and the mothers, if necessary – I applaud you. If you are teaching young people about sex and responsibility, that’s wonderful. But understand, loud and violent protesting at a women’s clinic serves no purpose except to intimidate patients who are already fragile. And especially, if you are male, remember that it’s not your business. Your business was to prevent the pregnancy; it’s not about you any more. Life-My-Way explained it as well as anyone, and I’m grateful for permission to link to it.

Current Reading:
Good Diary Today:
From the Old Folks' Radio:

previous - next

Pretty Clever, Huh? - 2008-12-08
Deja Vu... - 2008-12-07
Morally Wrong - 2008-11-25
The Difference - 2008-11-18
Writer's Block? - 2008-11-17