Thursday, May 11, 2006

Which is better?

I came across this article online today and, at first I just was giving it a passing glance and all, but then I came across one paragraphed quote in the article that got me thinking. By the sounds of the article, the protesters want the new conservative Canadian Gov't to reopen the abortion laws of Canada and change them. But the tone of the article, I am guessing they are not interested in making the laws more relaxed and making it easier to get an abortion.

"I think there is a growing concern, and I think it comes around the fact that there are a lot of women stepping forward now," Vellacott said Thursday "These are women that have actually had abortions and they feel they really had no choice, they were not properly informed. There is a growing awareness of unwanted abortions in the country, wherein men harass, badger, coerce"

Are the protesters and lobbyists sure they fighting for the right thing? sounds like what they are wanting is more protection for the women that dont want to have abortions instead of stopping abortions completely. After all, it could be said that to stop the men from pressuring the women to have abortions is to make it illegal to have abortions. But, then what about the women that are not being pressured but really want an abortion due to certain situations (rape) or maybe when the abortion is agreed upon by both members of the relationship (both are not ready at the moment for a child). By making abortions legal, you get to cover the rights of all the women (willing and unwilling) to have an abortion. I think what is needed here is more strength on the females part to say to the person doing the badgering "No, you are wrong, this is my decision, go with it". If the man forces or coerces her into an abortion, should the woman then be allowed to take the man to court or press charges for possibly 'conspiracy to commit murder' or at least cause the woman bodily harm?

However, that being said, I sometimes wonder if there should be a line drawn where a mans responsibility to the child ends. If the guy says he is not ready maturily, financially or emotionally for a child and suggests and abortion, but the woman says no and that she wants the child. Then should the man be forced to pay for that child? He has expressed a desire not to have it, and yet she is holding him basically at gun point saying "your opinions dont matter, mine do, therefore you are going to have to pay and support this child". If that is the case, then should the man be able to press charges for extortion? If so, then wouldnt the Canadian Gov't be no better than thugs making sure that the guy pays for something that he did?

Granted, there was an act done by the two parties that resulted in the conception of this life, and granted both are responsible for that life. However, if the guy isnt ready for that responsibility and the girl goes ahead with it, or vice versa, then why force the responsibility on the other person? but, then again, that just opens the whole can of worms concerning 'if the guy wants the baby and the girl says no, can she abort or does she have to go to term?' and all those other nasty questions that exist in life that some people glaze over. Sometimes, I wonder, if there can ever be peace in the world.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/abortion_activists_060511/20060511?hub=Canada

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home