Not 'NOW'
Women Know The Risks Of Sex
In defense of abortion, NOW says women cannot be expected to know the consequences of their actions.
Perhaps Stephanie Seguin and Liz Albelo of NOW ("Winning More Women's Rights," April 13) should do less demanding of rights and more educating of women on responsibility.
To clarify, the law in South Dakota does not ban all abortions. In fact, it keeps abortion legal for those whose life may be in danger if the pregnancy were to continue.
With our voices to say 'No' and the availability of over-the-counter contraceptives, there are few instances where a truly unwanted pregnancy will occur. Adoption has always been a wonderful option afforded all women, regardless of race or social status.
Doctors and pharmacists are no different than anyone else; they should not be forced to take a life. Sadly, with our current society that devalues both life and purity, there are plenty of medical personnel who will gladly help a woman end her pregnancy.
In their list of how our rights, as women, are being restricted, they talk about the lack of clinics, the waiting periods and the high costs. All of these factors can be found with regard to all medication procedures.
To toss "parental notification" in the mix is even more ridiculous. As a parent, my child cannot undergo a procedure to have a wart removed or get a tattoo without my consent, yet these women find nothing wrong with young girls undergoing such an invasive medical procedure as an abortion.
Have they even considered how many rapes and statutory rapes have gone unreported and unpunished due to abortions performed on our young girls without their parents' knowledge? Why isn't NOW concerned about men getting away with these crimes against our daughters? Perhaps it's for the same reasons it turned a deaf ear to the behaviors of Teddy and Bill with regard to their degrading treatment of women; is it perhaps just more NOW hypocrisy?
If childbearing is so "physically dangerous" and such "hard work," as they describe, perhaps we should be telling girls and young women that they need not have premarital sex until they are in adult, committed relationships and have the emotional and fiscal means to carry a child to term and into adulthood. What lesson is learned when a "problem" is handled with a quick fix such as an abortion? Isn't it our goal as women to educate our young and show them the best path? Do we really want mistakes repeated?
Sorry, but life does begin when the egg is fertilized. The DNA markers are there (just as they are with born humans), and soon afterward the heart and the brain begin performing their functions. With current technology, the young baby can survive outside the mother's womb in a hospital at a very early age; why aren't her rights protected? Where is the concern for these developing young women? The new ultrasound technology must truly be making abortion-rights supporters very uncomfortable.
Not only are women who "get together" capable of outstanding victories, but they are capable of being responsible before sex and then taking responsibility for their actions after sex.
NOW wants us to think that women are innately dumb and cannot think before they act, as well as being unable to handle the consequences of their actions. I refuse to devalue women that way.
And with all the parents wanting to adopt healthy children, hopefully women and girls will become less selfish and stop seeing themselves as victims. An "outstanding victory" will be when girls and women say "no" to sex outside of marriage (or at least yes to adoption) since all the studies show that the institution of marriage is directly related to the fiscal health of woman and children.
It is a safety net for women and children. Yet NOW frowns on it as a prison for women, disregarding all the evidence that states otherwise.
How amusing that these women "demand" help from the government in raising a child, yet they don't see the need for the children to have two responsible role models in a mother and father. They demand paid paternal leave and universal health care. Again, this is simply more of wanting everyone to do for them without wanting to accept responsibility for individual behaviors and choices.
As Seguin and Alberto said, "If you want to get involved in winning more rights for women," you can attend a meeting.
My suggestion is that it not be a NOW meeting but rather a meeting at a local church that values life and sees women as responsible and bright individuals who are more than capable of saying "no" to sex while being humane enough to bring a life into the world should their choice provide such an outcome.
All my NOW activities got me was a big chip on my shoulder that I was a victim who couldn't control my own destiny. Thankfully, those days are long gone.
We, as women, are our own worst enemies. In most cases, we need not point the finger at men. It's time for us to grow up, stop being selfish and start being responsible while leading healthier, safer, and morally better lives. Only then will we be truly independent and free to lead happy, successful lives.
Nancy C. Thomas McInnes lives in Gainesville.
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006205010302&source=email
In defense of abortion, NOW says women cannot be expected to know the consequences of their actions.
Perhaps Stephanie Seguin and Liz Albelo of NOW ("Winning More Women's Rights," April 13) should do less demanding of rights and more educating of women on responsibility.
To clarify, the law in South Dakota does not ban all abortions. In fact, it keeps abortion legal for those whose life may be in danger if the pregnancy were to continue.
With our voices to say 'No' and the availability of over-the-counter contraceptives, there are few instances where a truly unwanted pregnancy will occur. Adoption has always been a wonderful option afforded all women, regardless of race or social status.
Doctors and pharmacists are no different than anyone else; they should not be forced to take a life. Sadly, with our current society that devalues both life and purity, there are plenty of medical personnel who will gladly help a woman end her pregnancy.
In their list of how our rights, as women, are being restricted, they talk about the lack of clinics, the waiting periods and the high costs. All of these factors can be found with regard to all medication procedures.
To toss "parental notification" in the mix is even more ridiculous. As a parent, my child cannot undergo a procedure to have a wart removed or get a tattoo without my consent, yet these women find nothing wrong with young girls undergoing such an invasive medical procedure as an abortion.
Have they even considered how many rapes and statutory rapes have gone unreported and unpunished due to abortions performed on our young girls without their parents' knowledge? Why isn't NOW concerned about men getting away with these crimes against our daughters? Perhaps it's for the same reasons it turned a deaf ear to the behaviors of Teddy and Bill with regard to their degrading treatment of women; is it perhaps just more NOW hypocrisy?
If childbearing is so "physically dangerous" and such "hard work," as they describe, perhaps we should be telling girls and young women that they need not have premarital sex until they are in adult, committed relationships and have the emotional and fiscal means to carry a child to term and into adulthood. What lesson is learned when a "problem" is handled with a quick fix such as an abortion? Isn't it our goal as women to educate our young and show them the best path? Do we really want mistakes repeated?
Sorry, but life does begin when the egg is fertilized. The DNA markers are there (just as they are with born humans), and soon afterward the heart and the brain begin performing their functions. With current technology, the young baby can survive outside the mother's womb in a hospital at a very early age; why aren't her rights protected? Where is the concern for these developing young women? The new ultrasound technology must truly be making abortion-rights supporters very uncomfortable.
Not only are women who "get together" capable of outstanding victories, but they are capable of being responsible before sex and then taking responsibility for their actions after sex.
NOW wants us to think that women are innately dumb and cannot think before they act, as well as being unable to handle the consequences of their actions. I refuse to devalue women that way.
And with all the parents wanting to adopt healthy children, hopefully women and girls will become less selfish and stop seeing themselves as victims. An "outstanding victory" will be when girls and women say "no" to sex outside of marriage (or at least yes to adoption) since all the studies show that the institution of marriage is directly related to the fiscal health of woman and children.
It is a safety net for women and children. Yet NOW frowns on it as a prison for women, disregarding all the evidence that states otherwise.
How amusing that these women "demand" help from the government in raising a child, yet they don't see the need for the children to have two responsible role models in a mother and father. They demand paid paternal leave and universal health care. Again, this is simply more of wanting everyone to do for them without wanting to accept responsibility for individual behaviors and choices.
As Seguin and Alberto said, "If you want to get involved in winning more rights for women," you can attend a meeting.
My suggestion is that it not be a NOW meeting but rather a meeting at a local church that values life and sees women as responsible and bright individuals who are more than capable of saying "no" to sex while being humane enough to bring a life into the world should their choice provide such an outcome.
All my NOW activities got me was a big chip on my shoulder that I was a victim who couldn't control my own destiny. Thankfully, those days are long gone.
We, as women, are our own worst enemies. In most cases, we need not point the finger at men. It's time for us to grow up, stop being selfish and start being responsible while leading healthier, safer, and morally better lives. Only then will we be truly independent and free to lead happy, successful lives.
Nancy C. Thomas McInnes lives in Gainesville.
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006205010302&source=email
posted by R7 | 5/02/2006 09:59:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home