After reading the Indy’s article about the rally on Main Beach against the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade I get really sad. These people are protesting that a woman should have the right to control her body—“my body, my choice”. Yet these same people were the ones telling us that we had no choice and had to get the vaccine. So, I guess “my body, my choice” only is applicable for issues that they are for. No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, I’m sad that they don’t see that it should apply to any issue for a woman’s body or for that matter a man’s body. How do they not see the hypocrisy of what they are protesting? You can’t have it both ways. Forcing someone to have a vaccine with no choice or not allowing someone the choice to have an abortion which they say is a constitutional right. So what is it?
Michèle Monda, Laguna Beach
Is she serious? What about the population (see mostly republicans) that wanted a choice on the vax (my body my choice) and then the republican court saying no to abortions. So yeah, as you say, what is it?
Really John?? The Democrats are the ones forcing the vax on everyone with no choice. I don’t understand your confusion here. The Dems want to force you to have a vax with no choice but want a choice when it comes to abortion – using the same thinking – my body my choice. So please tell me how are you confused???? I’m not. They want a choice when it comes to the issues that they want and not the ones they don’t want.
May I suggest reading an LTE in the Stunews | Volume 14, Issue 55 | July 22, 2022, titled “Rebuttal Letter to ‘Abortion hypocrisy a bit rich’,” written by Sarah E Vogel, Laguna Beach. The points made in the original Stunews LTE, which Ms. Vogel calls in question, are quite similar to this Indy LTE “Hypocrisy at Main Beach Rally.”
Ms. Vogel makes an astute argument in her rebuttal: “first, the false equivalency, which is often referred to as the mistake of comparing apples to oranges; and, second, the ad hominem fallacy in which an argument strays from its line of reasoning and instead makes an attack against a person, or in this case a group of people, thereby abandoning one’s argument for what could be characterized as the cheap shot.”
Further, she writes “to equate the state of being pregnant with a deadly virus that has killed 6.3 million people worldwide in 2 1/2 years is a non-starter because one simply cannot compare the two. Pregnancy is not a life-threatening communicable disease. Although it will now be a potentially life-threatening condition for many women.”
I’d like to come to an end by emphasizing the key concern in this on line discussion, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and I quote Michele Goodwin, Chancellor’s Professor of Law at UCI –
“Overturning the right to abortion reveals the court’s indefensible disregard for the lives of women, girls and people capable of pregnancy, given the possible side effects and consequences of pregnancy, including gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, hemorrhaging, gestational hypertension, ectopic pregnancy and death.”
Professor Goodwin also points out that “mandated, forced or compulsory pregnancy contravenes enumerated rights in the Constitution, namely the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude and protection of bodily autonomy, as well as the 14th Amendment’s defense of privacy and freedom.”
No Justice Alito, Reproductive Justice Is in the Constitution | Opinion Guest Essay | NY Times | June 26, 2022
Really Michele?? How do you equate a deadly global health crisis and the effort to keep us safe with a woman’s right to control her body?