Replies

I didn't "contrue" that sentence. Our SC Justices did and you are right, they are are using "control of reproductive life" as a euphamism for abortion.

Basically, they are saying that a woman's ability to "particpate equality in the social/economic life of the nation" is CONDITIONAL on her parental status, or in other words, NOT being parent. Of course they don't want to say it in a straightforward way, but that is what they are saying. Abortion is just the mean to un-parent yourself. Their main argument for upholding Roe v Wade (abortion) is that being a parent hinders women moreso than it hinders men. So abortion is justified to corrcect this arbitrarily contrived cultural inequality. (It is not about pregnancy, it is about being a parent).

The argument is that a woman parent cannot presently (and implicitely will NEVER be be allowed) to participate equally if she is a parent ..... relative to men who are parents.

This is essentially true the way our culture is frameworked today. However, it doesn't have to be true. The SC is basically saying this fundemental culturally derived inequalty WILL NEVER CHANGE FOR WOMEN. Don't even ask. Therefore, they reason women have to have the right to eliminate their offspring to offset this culturally imposed inequality between men and women parents. (Note: they did not give this "right" to men, because it is implied that men don't need it. Male parents are not hindered socially/economically relative to female parents).

They are basically telling women that their equality is conditional on being UN-parents. They are not saying the same thing for men parents, so they are upholding a basic inequality as something to be preserved and enshrined into LAW.

The odd thing is that some feminists actually agree to go along with this further enshrined cultural inequality.

I believe this is what Pres. Bush and others need to tackle in their "creating a culture of life". Right now we have a culture of "get ahead at all costs and stick women with the full responsibility for children".

These two viewpoints are at odds. If we were to instead treat every child as a net ASSET to society, instead of a net liability (and a liability more to women than men) then we could circumvent the need for abortion in the first place. As long as there is a double standard in this area. As long as parenting is culturally re-enforced as a social/economic liability (for women more than men), abortion will continue to be perceived (even by our most learned legal minds SC justices) as the "solution" for women being "equal".

As I said, it's a Faustian bargain, but one that many people seem to have no problem with. I do. My equality is NOT conditional because I'm a woman. I refuse to be told it is. I'm a parent just like many men are parents. As a parent I deserve equal opportunities in the public sphere as any male parent. I demand equal educational opportunities, jobs opportunities, and equal time parenting.

If women DEMANDED real unconditional equality it would be a much different world, and I believe a world where abortion would not be a reasonable choice.