Wednesday, April 1, 2015

In class, Mr. Doggett walked us through the steps that lead up to the Roe v. Wade trial in 1973, stating that it all began with a woman, Sherri Finkbine, wanting to be able to abort her child. Something that interested me about this case was that the lawyers chose Norma McCorvey as their plaintiff. At first, I would have thought that with the extremely controversial nature of this case and how important it was, they may have chosen a plaintiff with a 'cleaner' history. This would enable the lawyers to not have to worry about the judges thinking that she has already dealt with two other children and why can't she simply do it again. Norma, though, may have been the perfect plaintiff to illustrate their argument in a not-too-radical way. If they had had a wealthy woman with no such history, she would have not shown a realistic representation of the situation most women are in when they wish to receive an abortion.

In 'The Woes of Roe' article by Gail Collins, the aftermath of this decision is interpreted and explained. Collins writes that "Americans are permanently uncomfortable with the abortion issue", which I agree with because it is an unnatural and uncomfortable procedure and idea. She goes on to illustrate some of the contradictions with this issue and that "83 percent of likely voters picked the women (should choose), including 64 percent of those who called themselves pro-life". This shows how complicated this issue is. This statistic shows me that people who are pro-life may simply be that way for themselves, but when it comes to others, they are okay with the right to choose. It is a procedure and issue that only truly affects those who are in a particular situation and those who are not are only guessing as to what they might think or do if they were.

Lastly, in our discussion we got to talking about the man's role in all of this. I find this really hard to wrap my mind around. I feel like, yes they should be a part of the decision, but so much of the abortion issue depends on circumstance in my mind. If the woman is on her own, the man doesn't have a say. If the woman and man are not planning to stay together, but the man wants the child, it should be a mutual decision. If the woman and man are married, it should be discussed even more. I don't see any scenario where the man makes the final decision, but they should certainly have a say if they wish to be a part of either the woman or child, or both's lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What do you think about this issue?