Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Supreme Court revisits abortion

In this case, the right of the parent(s) to know if their daughter is about to have an abortion.

CNN Link:

Of interest in the article is the following quote from a 20 year-old college student who had an abortion earlier in her life:
"I decided it was best for me to have an abortion because I did not want to be a parent at that point in my life," she said.

Now 20 and a college senior, she is speaking out against the state statute.

"These laws are only about eroding access to abortion," she told CNN. "If you want to talk to your parents, you can do that, but if the state steps in and tells you that you have to do that to protect your reproduction, it is very disappointing."


The woman in question is summoning age-old NARAL rhetoric in claiming the state is interfering with a woman's reproductive "freedom". At the risk of appearing that I am oversimplifying the situation (while in reality I am not), I submit the following solution to the woman's reproductive "freedom" issues:

Dear, stop having intercourse. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it as well. You are a big girl now, capable of controlling your appetites, sexual and otherwise. Don't fool around until you are "ready" to have that child (whenever that might be). You are free to have sex. Be prepared to accept the consequences of that exercising that freedom. You are also free to choose not to have sex, thereby enjoying the freedom from responsibility that entails.


It really is that painfully simple.
<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>