If you infer a right to privacy in the constitution, as the court has done, than our ability to choose our reproductive destiny is the ultimate, or one of the ultimate, areas of such privacy. The abortion cases grew from the lineage of forced sterilization cases. The US supreme court found that the forced sterilization of those incarcerated was an intrusion in to their right of privacy concerning their own bodies. If you are not allowed to govern your own body, what, exactly, does freedom really mean? And how can women be free if they are forced, simply by geographic destiny, to carry a child to term which they do not want? Seems pretty draconian to me.
I understand not "liking" abortion, but the alternative is to force women, who you do not know, and who's circumstances you do not comprehend, to be breeders for children they do not want. I'm not sure you would want to be forced in to that, would you? If you accept such duty fine, but it's not "freedom" to be forced in to 9 months of incubatorship. |
