Logical Inconsistency?

Just for the “halibut,” I submitted my post (slightly edited) on “The Virus and Abortion” to the reader’s viewpoint section of our local newspaper.

I knew without a doubt I would receive kickback.

And I did.

Most were simply anti-abortion rights defenders, but the most recent contributor claimed my viewpoint suffered from “logical inconsistency” … ??

See what you think.

The [local newspaper] published a letter on Feb. 15 (“Is this correlation as tragically real as it feels?”). *Note: this is the title provided by the newspaper* The letter suggested that people who are COVID anti-vaxx and anti-abortion are suffering from a logical inconsistency.

There is no logical inconsistency between those views whatsoever.

Both views hold to the principle that it is morally wrong to force a medical procedure on an unconsenting person. Where is the inconsistency? Anti-vaxxers insist that it is wrong to force a vaccine on an unconsenting person.  The two positions are perfectly consistent. Both say that nobody has a lawful right to compel another person to undergo an invasive medical procedure involuntarily.

Of course, the pro-life and “pro-choice” movements disagree whether a fetus is a “person”. But nobody disagrees that a fetus never consents to the procedure. The fetus has no-choice.

In any case, to suggest that the pro-life and anti-vaxx positions are somehow inconsistent with each other is a falsehood and a straw man intended to distract from the real issues.

From my perspective, the writer digressed from the point of my letter (a woman’s right vs. an anti-vaxxer’s right) to interject his point: the “choice” (right) of the unborn. (“Pro-lifers insist that it is wrong to force a life-terminating abortion on an unconsenting (unborn) person.”)

And he accuses me of “logical inconsistency”??!!? Am I missing something?

Pro Birth Accountability Act

Scottie at ScottiesToyBox just posted an excerpt/link to the following article. IMO, it’s an idea whose time has come!

States That Ban Abortion Should Have to Pay People Forced to Give Birth

Excerpt:

Last week, a South Carolina state senator filed an incredible bill that every pro-choice lawmaker in the U.S. should copy. It says that if the state wants to ban abortion, it should have to pay all of the costs of birthing and raising children born as a result. 

I say Right On!

What say you?

 

Men and Women and Sex

Regarding the recent plethora of news reports surrounding sexual misconduct, I just wanted to put this out there. Let me be clear. I’m speaking from my own personal viewpoint as a woman. You have full rights to agree or disagree.

I feel strongly that ANY kind of sexual advancement made towards a woman without either verbal or physical encouragement is WRONG.

As to whether the man who performed such acts is famous or infamous, whether it happened two years ago or twenty … it should NOT be overlooked and pushed under the rug.

There are innumerable reasons why women keep silent about such incidents and using “elapsed time” should NEVER be a “defense” for the perpetrator.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fine standard to live by. But in the case of sexual misconduct against a woman, IMO, the scales are tipped on the woman’s side. Yes, there are women who may “tease” men and lead them on in various flirty ways, but if the woman discovers the man is not what she expected (rough, brutal, demanding, kinky, etc.), then her “NO” has no less meaning than if she had never done or said anything unseemly.

Further, any woman who continues to support a man accused of such acts, or looks the other way because she’s “related” in some way, is a traitor to her own sex.

The Supreme Court vs Texas

scales-of-justiceIn reference to the recent Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions that would have closed all but a handful of abortion providers in Texas, Hillary Clinton welcomed the court’s decision and called the efforts to curtail access to abortion as “politically motivated.”

(No. Not politically motivated. Religiously motivated.)

While there would still have been available clinics in large metropolitan centers (Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio), access would have been severely limited for many women. And one cannot help but portend that had the Supreme Court upheld this legislation, even these clinics would eventually have been shuttered.

Amazingly, Texas legislators claimed there was medical justification for their actions … that they were protecting women’s health (!). Thankfully, the majority of the Supreme Court judges did not see it that way.

I know addressing this subject is opening a can of worms and the anti-abortionists will no doubt come out of the woodwork to scream that a zygote is an embryo is a fetus is a human … and thus should never be aborted. But I stand by my long-standing persuasion that it is a woman’s decision. And similar to the right some people claim related to gun ownership, a woman, based on the indisputable fact that she is a primary factor in the perpetuation of the human race, has the right to choose abortion. And thus, safe and convenient medical facilities should always be available to her for this purpose.

In the Matter of Abortion

The current political scene has (once again) brought the abortion issue to the forefront with the Religious Right loudly proclaiming their “Right to Life” mantra. (This time, they’re even sticking their noses into the use of contraceptives!)

Now they’re pushing for a nation-wide mandate that abortion providers perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion. This in itself is unnecessary (and costly, around $200) if the woman has made her decision, but they don’t stop there. They also want to require the provider to offer (encourage?) the woman an opportunity to view the image.*

Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist, recently asked this biased question: “Shouldn’t  abortion-seeking women see the life they are about to end?” (I get so frustrated with men sticking their noses into this issue!)

There are several reasons why a woman will choose to have an abortion. The following statistics come from the National Right to Life website:

  • Feels unready for child/responsibility – 25%
  • Feels she can’t afford baby – 23%
  • Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities – 19%
  • Relationship problem/Single motherhood – 8%
  • Feels she isn’t mature enough – 7%

From a woman’s point of view (the only one that counts), these are all valid reasons. After all, she’s the one who will be responsible for the major care of the child.

It’s been said that the recent anti-abortion comments made by certain Republican candidates are not “an attack on females.” Oh really? What do they call it?

I’m not going to get into the debate as to when a fetus becomes a ‘real’ human being. That’s way beyond my grade level – and, to my thinking, everyone else’s. But I will stand up for a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. And no one – male or female – has the right to interfere.

*According to the Guttmacher Institute (a non-profit organization that works to advance abortion rights), seven states — Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and most recently, Virginia — now have this mandate in force.

ADDENDUM – February 10, 2014

I just came across an excellent blog posting on abortion and God’s will. I urge visitors to check it out at this link. The same writer also wrote the following in another posting on the same subject.

So it’s pretty hard to assert that a developing organism within a womb is a separate human being until it is born and begins to form its own individual experiences of the world. Since men have no existential understanding of what it’s like to be pregnant, a man should not have any say on the issue of whether or not a woman has an abortion unless he is married to the pregnant woman and intends to offer financial and emotional support after the birth. Likewise, a woman should have no say on whether or not a man uses Viagra, unless she is his intimate partner.