Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Why I couldn't vote for Rice

President Bush was supported and promoted by the Religious Right to achieve one objective and one objective only: To reverse Roe vs. Wade. Bush probably begged O'Connor to hold out into his second term to resign so he could replace her without having to jeopardize his re-election to a second term.

I am not a "pro-abortion" person. I don't sit around thinking that every woman should approach an unwanted pregnancy by running to the nearest clinic and have it removed. I'm aware that women do this, I'm not saying I promote abortion.

I am all about a woman having complete and total control over her own body. This is absolutely no one's business except hers and her doctor's. Bush has made it very clear that not only does he not agree with this thinking, he is going to do everything within his power to make sure the law steps in. It's like he's saying, you can make a lot of your own decisions little missy, but this big one doesn't belong to you. We're going to make sure that the only way out is to carry that baby to term, whether you like it or not. You do not matter here; you've stopped being and independent woman and are now a baby factory.

And what's worse is that the way South Dakota is framing the law is this. It's the doctor that would go to prison, not the woman. Why? Because they know she would risk prison for this right, it's so extremely personal. But a doctor would less likely be willing to go to jail for a stranger. So, they'll make it illegal to perform an abortion becuase if he is arrested, he cannot contest it on the grounds that she has the right to have one. A doctor would have to contest that he has the right to perform one which might be more difficult to win. I'm not an attorney but that is how I understand it would work.

I have for so long supported and loved Condoleeza Rice, but you know, she has supported Bush without a second thought. I can't vote for a woman who would not turn the other way from someone who has worked so feverishly, singlemindedly and forcibly to do this to women. What is it Bush says? You are either with us or against us.

When I look at Hillary, I suddenly realize that she is not manipulated by the religious right. She's not even manipulated by her own party. I don't think she is manipulated by any particular group. I do believe both she and Bill are owed a lot of favors by many many various people. Bill has more pull than any other Democratic figure. People will work to get her elected for a variety of reasons.

Who's pocket is she in, really? And who's in her pocket?

10 comments:

Freebird said...

Can't really comment on Rice since I don't follow politics, but I agree with you 110% on a woman's right to choose.

Jason said...

Not being a woman, I realize that I don't have the point-of-view necessary to see your side of the issue, but don't you think it's a little selfish to think that killing a child is 'a woman's right to do what they wish with their own body'? I mean, the responsibility for having that child inside is the mother's (excepting rape, of course), so shouldn't a woman pay the consequences of her own actions if she gets pregnant? It's weighing 9 months of inconvenience vs. a child's life, and you are coming down on the side of the irresponsible mother rather than the innocent child.

I personally believe abortion should be legal, but I simply don't understand why women get so offended by the other side of the issue.

Freebird said...

Just a few thoughts on Jason's comment: I think the abortion rates would be a lot lower if men would actually step up and take responsibility for their actions as well. I'm sure this is a big reason why women feel they have to terminate pregnancies. They can't afford to or don't want to do it all alone. I don't know the statistics, but I do know that there are WAY TOO MANY women out there struggling to make ends meet because of dead beat dads.

A Girl From Texas said...

The issue isn't abortion. The issue IS NOT ABORTION. Let me say this one more time, the issue is NOT ABORTION.

The issue is, my body is my body and whatever happens to my body is between me and my doctor. PERIOD. And no one, not the government, not the church, not my neighbor, not even my husband has any business knowing what my body is doing, ever. Not ever.

In case I wasn't clear. MY BODY IS MY BODY AT ALL TIMES. It never becomes anyone else's body, ever. Not ever.

eaf said...

And that, Jason, is why women get offended. I understand where you are coming from, truly, and because I know you and know you are the sort of guy who would take care of both your baby and the mother of your baby at all costs to your own life, then I know why this is hard to grasp.

Trust me when I say that it is very difficult to separate myself from the baby inside me. So GFT has really put it as succinctly as I've ever heard it put.

Chris said...

I think we've just seen a microcosm on why the pro-choice and pro-life sides are so violently opposed and no common ground can be found.

For the pro-choice crowd, it's all about the woman's right to control her own body. For the pro-life crowd, it's all about the child's right to exist. Two completely different things.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the government should keep their noses out of everything.

A Girl From Texas said...

I think another thing is the wording people use when they discuss abortion.

For example, Jason refers to it as "killing a child" when referring to abortion but says that it's ok when the woman is raped. Why in the world would it be ok to kill a child over rape?

It is never ok to kill a child. If abortion is the same as killing a child, then the full force of the law must be applied and it would have to be a capital murder. Both the doctor and mother are accessories and they would have to serve full sentences for murder.

But terminating a pregnancy does not equal killing a child. That is why hundreds of thousands of them occur every year and no one feels any fear for their own personal safety over it. Nor does anyone feel that their children are in any danger as a result of it.

Jason said...

I respect everyone's opinion on just about any subject. It just puzzles me how some issues seem to spawn total intolerance for the other point of view sometimes. IMHO, American society is compartmentalizing and each compartment is becoming increasingly intolerant of others, and it is a bad, bad thing to have happen to the world's best example of freedom.

A Girl From Texas said...

Jason, I think what's important here is that most people are not "pro-abortion". I have no problem with people not supporting the idea of abortion and trying to pursuade women to seek alternative methods. I don't have a problem with people having an opinion on a lot of things.

But the intolerance and resistance that you are witnessing is a result of a governmental power stepping in to remove this right. So, yes, you're damned right, I'm intolerant of this. I am absolutely intolerant of anyone stepping in and removing this right. It has to be said. It has to be fought.

The fight isn't about what one believes to be moral or immoral; the fight is whether the woman has total control over her own body. There's no room for compromise on this one.

Amy said...

I think if the sex is consensual and the man wants the baby the woman should have to have it. Yes it is her body but she didn't get pregnant alone and if he wants to raise the baby, she should have it. If he wants her to get an abortion and she doesn't, she has it and then he has to pay child support. So if she can force him to have to care for a child then he should be able to force her to have it if he wants it.

The only flaw in my plan is guys who don't want the kid, but want to be a pisser and make her have it and then won't raise it. So in a perfect world where guys would not be jerks about this I like my theory.