ROE V WADE No woman should be judged for choice
ABORTION is a very private issue which should only be the concern of the woman and her doctor (and the father of the baby if that is appropriate in the given circumstances).
There are many reasons for this procedure but most letter writers seem to focus only on the control of reproduction by the woman or the results of a rape. What about the woman who has a high risk of dying – and her unborn child with her – if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? What about the baby who has an abnormality which is incompatible with life outside the uterus? These are very real situations.
No woman should be judged, whatever her reason for this choice.
It is never an easy decision to make and is not done so lightly, ever. It is certainly not used as a means of birth control as so many seem to think.
I notice that the letters published which are anti-abortion are predominantly signed by men. Let them be put into the position which necessitates such a decision and then see how they feel.
And the word abortion is not a cover -up as implied by one writer in the Mercury, it is the proper term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus would be viable.
The word miscarriage is the coverup as many of those losing a baby by “natural” means when abortion was illegal, would be horrified to think they had an abortion.
Making this procedure illegal again only ensures many women will once again resort to the backyard abortionist and will lose their lives to infections and uterine ruptures and the like.
DIFFICULT DECISIONS
HUMAN opinion is always divisive, especially on issues of life and death.
V1 - MERE01Z01MA
Jane Hall Rokeby
Extremely complex and traumatic by nature, they invoke our deepest emotions, whether victim, family, or friend.
Euthanasia, suicide and abortion are such examples.
Amid the heartache and agony of these situations, there is a distinction between the three – who makes the choice to take life?
Abortion, while acknowledging valid medical/social arguments for this horrific procedure, is the prerogative of the would-be mother.
Many women agonise over this life decision, for their own mother gave them the “right to life”, and should they not do likewise?
Others march the streets, placarding a woman’s right “to do anything with their own body”, yet they, too, were given “the right to life” – even to protest about their own “human rights”.
Abortion of the unborn is a legal “medical procedure”, but there is no early legal protection for the unborn. They are defenceless. Is it morally right, necessary or just convenient?
Meanwhile, the male offender often
walks clear, remains anonymous, and is devoid of responsibility.
Is that, too, a “human right”?
David Bissett Somerset
OPINIONS NOT VALID
AS a mother who lost her daughter to adoption and still suffers the trauma 54 years on, I believe I have a right for an opinion in the abortion debate.
Any man who has a one-night stand and doesn’t wait to see if there are consequences, any man who does not pay maintenance, any sexual offender, any church representatives, should have no opinion in the debate because we know their abuse history.
Any policeman or court official who didn’t take rape seriously ie: out alone, seen having a drink, short skirt, she asked for it, any parent who didn’t support their daughter while pregnant, any doctor who put BFA (baby for adoption) on papers without consent forfeit the right to have a say in this debate.
As for all the “do-gooders” screaming against abortion, how many of you have helped out the family down the road with a large family? Taken a casserole? Offered to babysit while their parents can take a breather?
How many? I wouldn’t even have to take my gloves off to count.
Christine Burke Claremont
RETURN TO SLAVERY
READER Jack Sonnemann (Letters, July 1) is correct when he says historically, the US Constitution is notoriously hard to amend.
But that’s been the Republican game plan for decades – stack the Supreme Court of the United States with ideologically driven religious zealots behind judicial robes to reverse the precedent set by the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.
On January 1, 1863, at the height of the American Civil War, US President Abraham Lincoln issued an executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation; which declared that “all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforth shall be free”. But only a handful were immediately freed from slavery.
The momentum for change was only realised in 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment became part of the United States Constitution. So where does the recent SCOTUS decision on abortion rights leave American women? Make no mistake – revoking women’s rights on personal healthcare decisions, to be placed under the servitude (control) of the so-called “fundamentalist” states, is a return to slavery.
Banning or severely limiting access to abortion treats women as mere procreative devices. Time for some checks and balances, enforced by the President and the US Congress; thereby return the real “power to the people” through a statutory Bill of Rights.
Delia Thompson
Campania