The documentary Reversing Roe shed light on a topic of debate that is pertinent in our society today. Should abortions remain legal, or should our government legally reverse the effects of the Roe V. Wade court case? There were many parts of this documentary that immediately grasped my attention, many parts I agreed with, and some parts that I also did not agree with. For starters, I believe that abortion should remain legal and that abortion clinics should be made available to the public because a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body and is entitled to her own opinion on abortions. The fact that there are 7 states with only one accessible abortion clinic is concerning to me because that could increase the likelihood of a woman using unsafe means to terminate her own pregnancy. I also find it appalling that some people have taken this matter to such an extreme that they feel it is necessary to bomb an abortion clinic or murder an abortion doctor. Someone who is pro life is certainly entitled to their own opinion and if they disagree with abortions that is okay, but it is completely unacceptable to attack or cause harm to those who feel that abortion is a choice women should have. On the other hand, there were some parts of the documentary that I did question and will challenge. One gynecologist, Colleen McNicholas, remarked that no federal dollars go to pay for abortion. I’m just not so sure that I buy that. Planned parenthood is a federally funded organization and just because none of the money they receive is specifically said to be dedicated to funding abortions, that does not mean that they will not still be using this funding to carry out the procedures. Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortion services in the country and they aren’t exactly being monitored 24/7 by the government. Personally, it just doesn’t really add to me that they wouldn’t be putting a mass portion of their funding towards one of the biggest services they provide.
Drawing the line between whether abortion is a political matter or a personal, medical matter is what costitutes much of this long-lived debate regarding whether or not abortions should be legal. About a year ago, I distinctly remember watching an ex-abortion doctor, by the name of Dr. Levatino, publically speak out about what an abortion procedure actually looks like and entials. Dr. Levatino was testifying in a court case that was examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at Planned Parenthood facilities. The descriptions provided by Dr. Levatino, former abortion provider, in this video have stuck with me to this day because of how greusome and saddening they were for me to hear. Dr. Levatino was brave enough to publicly say it as it really is. Although I personally was disturbed by this information and do not believe that I would be able to handle the weight of having an abortion myself, by no means do I believe that anyone should have the right to chose what another woman decides to do with her own body. If someone does not believe that an abortion is right for them, that’s okay. That does NOT mean that they can take matters into their own hands and force another woman, who may be struggling with making her own decision, to abide by his/her choice to keep their baby. Any woman should be able to decide for herself. This is why I feel that this should be more of a personal matter between a woman and her doctor rather than a decision in the hands of our government. Another reason why I feel that this should not be a political matter is because I do not feel that it is morally just to put a portion of the tax money of people who may not be in support of abortions towards funding these procedures. If a woman decides that an abortion is best for her, she should have the right to do so without being attacked or ridiculed by others who may disagree; however, I do not think that it is justifiable to force people who are not in support of abortions themselves to put a portion of their own money towards financing the abortions of others. If abortions go against someone’s own personal or religiouos beliefs, why should the money that they have earned support a cause that they do not personally agree with?
The two links below go much more in depth about Dr. Levatino’s testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think about this issue?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.