I feel like I am constantly defending my position of pro-choice because the Catholic Church vehemently opposes this stance and many believe it is immoral. Being pro-choice is not a disregard for human rights and dignity, but rather a realization of human privacy, free will, accidents, and forgiveness. It is most certainly not a pro-abortion position, but definitively pro-choice.
By Stephanie Isacco
Staff Writer
I feel like I am constantly defending my position of pro-choice because the Catholic Church vehemently opposes this stance and many believe it is immoral. Being pro-choice is not a disregard for human rights and dignity, but rather a realization of human privacy, free will, accidents, and forgiveness. It is most certainly not a pro-abortion position, but definitively pro-choice.
Abortion rights cannot be a black or white, yes or no, all or none issue; there are gray areas and to ignore the in-between is to be blind to the human element of the issue. First of all, there is a problem with the way sex is portrayed. You cannot deny that sex is a staple of our society; we see it everywhere: television, music, celebrities, advertisements, and we cannot ignore this influence on the perception of sex.
When you see women in magazines half naked and endorsing products or watch movies directed towards teen audiences that throw around the notion of casual sex, it is no surprise that young people are being pressured to have sex before they are ready. These pressures carry over into social settings where young relationships are becoming sexually active earlier.
If a young boy is going to be made fun of for being a virgin, he is likely to stop the teasing by engaging in sexual activities. And when a young girl wants to have her first boyfriend, she may feel pressured to progress and sustain the relationship by becoming sexually active. It is a sad reality, but it is just that, a reality.
If this epidemic of casual sexuality continues to be overlooked, problems will continue. The second problem is the type of sex education available to these young people. Many “moral” Americans believe that the only way to teach about sex is to condemn it and to preach abstinence, but when the audience that you are addressing is being told it’s bad to have sex by a teacher, and then being told the opposite from their celebrity role models and friends, whom are they going to listen to?
It does not take much effort to realize that young people are not going to just completely erase all that they are being told from other sources in favor of abstinence, so they should be taught safe sex education. Give them the opportunity to choose not to engage in sexual activity, but also provide them with the knowledge required to have safe and responsible sex if they choose to.
Senator Barack Obama realizes that there is a teen pregnancy crisis that needs to be addressed at its foundations to ensure that children that come into this world are provided for. (I am not claiming that all teen parents are bad parents. My sister is an excellent teen mother to a beautiful baby girl.) He supports measures to increase and improve sex education to include information appropriate to the ages of the audience and accessibility to contraception for those wishing to take preventative measures.
This position recognizes that under certain circumstances women may be in the position where they will be unable to provide for a child, they were using precautions in their sex practices and an accident happened, or they were pressured into an undesirable situation that can only be reversed through this outlet. I am not condoning those who are not careful and who use abortion as a way out of a tough situation; I do, however, believe in leaving the option for those who have done nothing wrong and feel they have no other options. I believe I am not alone in this view.
The abortion issue is a leverage issue for the right. Republicans use their pro-life label to seem moral and to distract voters who believe politicians will act on their “moral” values. In previous elections, abortion was the hot-button issue, and if it were not for the condition of the country, it still would be.
However, we have had a pro-life president for the last eight years and he had the opportunity to appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. If Bush expected his appointment to ensure an overturning of Roe v. Wade, he was sadly mistaken, and I believe a similar circumstance will occur if John McCain is able to appoint judges.
If it is overturned, where will the depletion of privacy end? Before we know it there will be fetal protectionism laws that can penalize the mother who smokes during her pregnancy or even dares to eat poorly. Where is the liberty in that?
And how can anyone who sits around waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned while simultaneously ignoring other obvious human rights issues, consider themselves the moral majority? I know that I personally have a deep respect for life, and I am offended to be called immoral simply because I am basing my opinion on more than just the abortion issue (which is also a question of privacy and liberty). It is important to look at all of the issues, especially the ones that will directly affect you.