If, as the SCOTUS conservative justices claim, abortion is morally wrong because it deprives a fetus of life, what about the other moral aspects also cloaked in the majority justices’ decision?
If eliminating a woman’s right to get an abortion, and diminishing her rights to equality is this country, a moral way to act? Inherent in the court’s majority vote was the presumed awareness that such a ruling would deeply affect the lives of women in their child-bearing years, and most notably, hurt lower-income Blacks and Hispanics who may not have the financial means to get in abortion in another state. And the law also imposes by law forced delivery and forced pregnancy.
If you agree that their decision may endanger particularly lower-income women, then “morality” not only concerns the rights of the fetus, it also includes the rights of women. Does one fetus’s right sweep away any consideration of a woman’s right? What is the correct moral position here? Where do we – or should we – draw the line? Who decides – women? Or men? Both?
I am suggesting that the “morality” of an issue may not be a simple black-white decision. Other factors also should be considered. If you agree, then “morality” has become a shades-of-gray issue.
Let’s take something like deliberate murder of an individual – is that a black-white issue? If so, what about the death penalty in many states in this country? If murder is black-white, then why can states commit murder?
And what about wars – some say if it’s a “just” was, then war and the killing of the enemy is okay. But what is a “just” – or an “unjust” war? If my country wages a war, then it’s just? Or if another country does, it could be unjust? Who decides?
We are facing difficult questions these days, amplified by recent Supreme Court decisions.
While decisions such as open carrying of guns in the public does not have the same moral overtones for me, I would say that data suggests that the more guns on public streets show that more gun mishaps can occur, such as “road rage” or drunken bar fights. And if people die from gun shots, then does that make carrying a weapon out on the streets merely a personal second amendment right, or do such killings add different dimensions to the “freedom" to own and carry guns?
Other shades of gray also surround these recent Supreme Court decisions. As NYT columnist Maureen Dowd pointed out in her recent column, women are losing their rights because of this decision. “This is a story about men gaining power by trading away something that meant little to them-- the rights of women -- compared with their own stature.”
No, I am not saying that all men are guilty of her claim about men wanting power over women, but in some areas, among some men, that power is very important to them. I saw a picture of the Texas legislature with several women legislators in the front row and rows and rows of men behind them.
Description<span style="margin-left: 30px">House Members<span style="margin-left: 30px">Senate Members
Male<span style="margin-left: 130px">111</span><span style="margin-left: 130px">21</span>
Female<span style="margin-left: 120px">38</span><span style="margin-left: 130px">10</span>
Total<span style="margin-left: 130px">149</span><span style="margin-left: 130px">31</span>
Yes, this draconian abortion ruling was made by mostly by men.
The Catholic church took a strong stand against abortion, -- a decision made by all men.
The other thing that bothers me is the increasing power the Supreme Court is assuming this year. In the 6-3 abortion case, five justices, a majority, agreed that Roe v. Wade should be erased. Five people regulating the future lives of all of us. There are 162,826,299 or 162.83 million males and 166,238,618 or 166.24 million females in US. Five justices.
Add to all this Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion that said (paraphrased)abortion is just the beginning -- this decision opens the door to other aspects – the right to use contraceptives (!), the right to engage in same sex relationships, possibly forbidding gay marriage, LGBTQ rights – and who knows what else he can dream up (although, interestingly, he did not include a ban on interracial marriage). How convenient for he and his white wife, Ginni.
This is just the beginning of the fight – maybe for Thomas, but also for us women and men to fight as hard as they can to restore our rights -- equal rights for all.