"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Monday, September 03, 2007

Roe v Wade Not Applicable

My sister recently told me of niece of hers by marriage. She's 19 or 20 years old. She has three children. She got pregnant with the first child when she was 15. Now this young woman--and I say woman, because she is a mother of three--wants to have a tubal ligation done so that she won't ever get pregnant again. Guess what? The State of California says that she can't make that decision until she's 21-year-old!

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade concluding "that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." The right to privacy would suggest that a woman who wants to have an operation to, in effect, sterilize herself, would be a decision between her and her physician. After all, if a 19 or 20 year old woman can make the very important decision to kill a fetus, for whatever reason she wants to as long as it is not considered medically viable, it seems logical that she should also have the right to end her ability to get pregnant, especially, as in this case, when she already has three children.

In this type of case the woman is not harming any other person, or potential person. She is using her body as she wishes and not violating the rights of others. If she owns herself, then that is her right. Otherwise she is a slave to whoever can grant or deny her this operation. In this case, the State of California.

If it is an issue of age, with 21 being a magical delineation of rational abilities, then how is it that she can drive a car--potentially a most dangerous behavior--or vote--possibly more dangerous considering that people have gotten into office who would strip us of our rights completely and only grant us government privileges.

No. A mother of three, even at the age of 19, owns the property of her body and has the right to decide to have a pregnancy preventing operation. The State has no legitimate power to stop her. The government might require her doctor to counsel her seriously, and provide her with literature regarding the pros and cons of her decision. But the government has no right to stop her, especially when you consider, as stated above, she could have an abortion without the permission of the State.

This young woman is, to the best of my knowledge, a good mother and she is married. They are not rich, but they are getting by. She and her husband come from a culture that is rather machismo and, unfortunately, for her husband to wear a little rubber device over his willie is something that he just would never do. But that isn't the point. He shouldn't have to if he doesn't want to. His wife should be able to get this operation without having to use other birth control methods. She has three children and doesn't want any more. Either she owns the property of her body and mind or she doesn't. If she does then the State must get out of the way. If she doesn't, then none of us do and the State should just stop pretending to be anything but our civil master.

No comments: