Essay talk:Rhetorical analysis of abortion essays

I needed to vent, and this is a good a place as any. We are, in this nation, trying to criminalize being a woman. We have rules we seem to want women to follow, and do not accept when they say or do otherwise. Women should be chaste, and if they get pregnant because they are not chaste - that's their own damn fault, isn't it now. Arguments against abortions almost inevetably turn to issues of sexual immorality and "if you are going to spread your legs, deal with teh consequences".

From a legal standpoint, Due Process & Equal Protection are intersting points. It is not poor vs. rich that are in contest here, but male v. female. Both must be present to "due the deed", and both provided equal shares of DNA (or RNA, or whatever it is) to the potential human -- but only one of them will be forced to fit into society's mold as "slut" or what ever other disparages are laid at the feet of single women. Only one of the two of them will have to give up things like "working 18 hour days" or "alcohol" or their job if they are a pilot or a diving professional. and most importantly, only one of them risks health and life for the sake of a child they do not want.

It's easy for authors to make intellectual arguments about the "nature" of the abortion debate; or to look at the emotion in the debates (and i must say, i find it telling that most of the authors writing ON the topic of women's choice are MEN). But what no one is asking is "why does it matter to YOU, individual woman with a real life". It mattered to me, twice. Once after I was raped, once after I was simply stupid and 18 who had a scholarship and a job as a offshore dive instructor. There is no man, sorry to be sexist, but still, who can tell me that an analysis he writes in a book, is worth the same as my own life, my plans, my dreams which are ripe for me as an 18 year old, to hold my future. Nothing like the Fear of being a mother at 18, or the fear of going into a clinic that has had demonstrations, or the fear of giving birth is adressed in teh legalist analysis people want to do. There is a reason it's "choice". Cause without choice, women become slaves to our bodies.

Why did i need to rant, by the way? Cause just today Bush that wonderful president of ours, decided that he would WITHHOLD money to any hospital or clinic that does not allow people the right to REFUSE to give emergency contraception to rape victims, or who refuse to assist in a medically necessary abortion. This is sick, and this is wrong. We are living beings, not chattel. And we deserve dignity to say we do not want a rapist's baby - give us a damn drug; or we are dying, help us.--WaitingforGodot 18:22, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

i belive abortions should be elliegal! why should someone have the right to kill an unborn human being? nobody has the right buyt god to choose wether someone dies or lives...^{— Unsigned, by: 207.224.145.226 / talk / contribs} 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What a well written and lucid comment 20:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Rhetoric of Abortion

The author of the main article says that "The primary basis of the ruling was that abortion laws violated Due Process, which holds that laws must be apply to everyone and be enforced equally. Restrictions on abortion were historically only enforced against poor or minority women—wealthy white women were generally given a free pass. This bias violated the principle of Due Process."

This is a thoroughly misguided reading of Roe v. Wade. Re was not based on alleged inequalities; it was based on the idea that the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, created a "zone of privacy" that protects a woman in her decision to take fetal life. The decision is so poorly written that a prominent liberal legal scholar who favors abortion wrote a scathing criticism of the case in "The Wages of Crying Wolf," John Hart Ely, Yale Law Review, 1973. As a piece of reasoned legal writing, Roe v. Wade is sheer ipse dixit pronouncement. Even liberals snicker at it. Just to give two examples: The Court said, "We need not decide today the difficult question of when life begins." Oh, really. In other words it doesn't matter whether the fetus is fully human or not? This question goes to the very core of the case. Second example: The Court held that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Previously, the Supreme Court had defined a "fundamental right" as one that is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." There were other definitions, like "traditionally regarded as fundamental by English-speaking peoples at the time of our founding." or something to that effect. Abortion fits neither of these deinitions. Nor any other definition of "fundamental" ever previously used by the Court. Roe was a case of raw judicial power by the least democratic branch of government.

I've never actually read Roe v. Wade, but I had read somewhere that it was based on due process. And in retrospect, "I'd read somewhere" is not a very good source. This is honestly one my least favorite college essays, ranking even behind the one where I spent three pages describing everything I didn't like about James H. Schmitz's "Balanced Ecology". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"rhetoric", vs., women

I despise that abortion is seen as "rhetoric", or that it is even being discussed in the public sphere. You do not attempt to legislate how many kids someone has, or if they decide to have a risky heart procedure be done, or if they choose not to lose weight, even though it puts their health at risk -- yet we think it's appropriate to bring a personal medical decision into the public sphere, on the grounds that it's "about the baby" -- even when virtually everyone looking at funding issues can see it has little to nothing to do with babies, or we would have national programs in countries where this debate rages, that help give medical, emotional and financial support to the woman, and help provide care for the baby after it's born. But it's never that - those programs get cut by the very people screaming loudest "save the child".

Like gay marriage, and the attack on women's choice in muslim worlds to dress how they wish, and the attacks on immigration (around the world, but with different immigrants) - this is simply an attack of "we are/were in power, and choose not to lose our power to those who are not like us". It bothers me to no end. My life, my choices are not open to public debate. But to protect the rights of other women who might not have the access I have, I will open up my life and my choices and make them part of the public debate as necessary. --En attendant Godot 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be dipped

Pro-choice trolls exist? *brushes tear from eye* The internet is so progressive these days... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Course if the troll had bothered to read more than the first 3 words, she (likely) would have left the essay. it's a really good "pro choice" (in its own way) essay.GodotGet over it!. 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's oddly validating to hear you say that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear which? That the essay is good, or that the troll is likely a she?GodotGet over it!. 14:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)