The new waiting period is supposed to give women a "reflection period." According to Republican Rep. Kathie Conway, if "you get a couple of more days to think about this pregnancy, think about where it's going, you may change your mind." Democrat Rep. Judy Morgan from Kansas City contests this, saying that this waiting period is "designed to demean and shame a woman in an effort to change her mind." Missouri already has a lack of accessible abortion clinics to the majority of the population: for example, St. Louis only has one abortion clinic, so some people go days out of their way to visit this clinic, only to be forced to wait 3 more days until they can have an abortion.
This makes me angry, because what a woman does with her body should be her decision, not the states. Even if she gets to have an abortion in the end, what gives the government the right to make it so hard for her? Each state has its own set of abortion registration requirements, and they vary in degrees of "freedom" women get to have over their own bodies. It makes me even angrier that in the case of Missouri, incest and rape victims are subject to the same laws. Imagine having to live with that violation growing inside of you, a cause for shame and depression and anger, and having the state tell you that you have to deal with it for a few more days until you can finally "cleanse yourself." When will this madness stop?
What is your opinion on this highly controversial topic? Do you think it's okay for Missouri to raise their abortion waiting period? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to abortion rights? How can we change this? Note: I recognize that this is an area of great tension and controversy, so please be respectful in your answers!
One last "fun" political comic:
3 comments:
This is incredibly unfair to women who desire an abortion, not to mention rape and incest victims. It is an effort to limit a person's choice, and that should not be acceptable. Especially if the fetus was conceived without the consent of the pregnant individual. And the images effectively depicted the double standards in this world.
I agree with many of your points Vivian... this is truly a highly controversial topic, but I don't see how the debate over whether a woman gets a choice in this is even a question. It's her body, it's her life, so what justifies making this issue not her decision? Elena, I also agree with your comment about conception without consent (similar to taxation without representation on a much more private scale). One could easily compare this issue to the question of how direct a democracy should be, considering the obstacles of inefficiency, too many opinions, and majority control that can occur, which of course are very different from the moral arguments about taking the life of an unborn (albeit not technically fully formed) human. I say, power to the people - in this case, to the women.
People who tend to oppose abortion do so on moral grounds, claiming that aborting the fetus is equal to murdering an actual live human being. I think the restrictions on abortions is telling women that an unborn fetus is more important than they are, which is really ridiculous because the woman is more alive than the fetus is. In this way, I think that abortion restrictions are dehumanizing women, by prioritizing a fetus' health rather than a woman's health. Pregnancy can seriously harm a woman's health and some women even die while in labor, so it's infuriating how the states could place restrictions on abortion, especially that part about the "reflection period." As mentioned by Elena, it's especially disgusting that these restrictions are also applied to rape and incest victims. And what if the woman can't afford to take care of a child? I suppose the states would rather let two people starve instead of just one.
Post a Comment