Disclaimer: As this is my blog, the following are my opinions. You don’t have to agree with them, but if you’re reading them, it’s by your own accord. So save the rude comments about how I am wrong or that you don’t agree with what I say. This is one of my more controversial blog postings, so consider yourself forewarned.
Sonia Sotomayor’s Appointment Hearing:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should be aware that there is an opening on the United States Supreme Court. The vacancy is a result of Justice David Souter’s resignation in May. President Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the person he would like to see on the bench. As far as Sonia Sotomayor is concerned, I am both her biggest fan and her biggest critic.
Starting with the positive…
I think there’s definitely a need for another woman on the Supreme Court bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs some company since Sandra Day O’Connor left. Sotomayor is a Latina, in fact she would be the first Latina ever appointed to that position; and, after all, Hispanics are [rapidly] becoming a large portion of the population of the United States, it seems only fair that they get representation on the nation’s highest court as well. Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, so she obviously had the drive and the motivation to better herself – I really like that about her. Princeton & Yale graduate, enough said.
And the negative…
Let’s start with one of the most widely publicized issues with Sotomayor, the “wise Latina” comment. Sotomayor made a comment to the effect of “I would hope that a “wise Latina” would make better decisions than a white man.” Not sure about you, but as a white man, it offended me. Had the same comment been made by a white man singling out another ethnicity…trust me, it would have been a full on media firestorm, complete with Al Sharpton and a ‘full court press.’ One word of advice, if appointed, she needs to choose her words more wisely. This is something that I struggle with daily. Second, her view, or lack there of, regarding her outlook on abortion. During the most recent hearing she refused to answer a question relating to abortion rights; instead citing that she “would need to examine the particular state involved laws as they relate to abortion.” That’s not an answer. If you weren’t able to deduce this already, I don’t believe in abortion, except if the mothers life was in danger. Just because you weren’t smart enough or couldn’t be bothered in the ‘heat of the moment’ to take certain precautions is not the fault of the baby. It’s so interesting in this country, fetal heartbeats can be recorded at 14 days post-conception, and brainwaves can be recorded at 39 days post-conception; however, we define death as the absence of those, yet we refuse to define life as the presence of those…go figure. Sotomayor needs to be truthful and explain her views on this topic and then if appointed – stick to them. Lastly, one of my biggest concerns with Sotomayor is that she flat our refused to answer a question relating to her stance on an individuals 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. There are currently cases in the pipeline that relate not to the Federal Governments right to restrict handguns, but the state legislatures ability to do so. That scares me! I mean this country was built on an individual’s right to bear arms, and to have that right taken away terrifies me. I personally don’t know whether or not Sotomayor should be confirmed or not. I don’t know. I pose that question to you.
***********************************
Oh, and Jon Gosselin – grow up. Ed Hardy...you aren’t 15 years old, quit wasting your money on tacky ass clothes and take care of your 8 freaking kids!
Just for the woman's health?
ReplyDeleteWhat if the baby is discovered to have a genetic defect that precludes its survival outside the womb (ie - defects where the fetus does not develop a brain or has a brain but no skull)? Does the woman then have to suffer through months more of strangers congratulating her and asking her if it's a boy or girl and what is she going to name it and isn't she excited...
What if the woman was raped? She was scared to come forward and missed the window for taking the morning after pill.
What if the woman uses birth control but it fails and she is not in a position to have a child - she aborts as soon as she finds out but that is not early enough according to the narrow two week window that you give her before she should consider the collection of cells developing insider her a life?
While I don't agree that abortion should be an alternative to birth control, I do think that it is a little arrogant to assume that everyone who has an abortion is just using that as a form of birth control. Perhaps if you were of the gender that carried children, you might have to contemplate these possibilities not as philosophical contentions but as real things that you could have to go through.
Again, this is why I placed a disclaimer on this post. Let me address some of your concerns…
ReplyDeleteI personally don’t know what to say relating to the congratulating and questioning relating to an underdeveloped fetus. Having a baby is a risk; there are a number of things that can go wrong during any stage of the pregnancy…that’s just a risk every couple takes when they decide to have a child. Assume a different mother planned/wanted to have a child, what if she were to become pregnant and take a test that said her baby would be born with Downs Syndrome? Should she then be allowed to have an abortion because she can’t/won’t/isn’t up to/doesn’t want to raise/love a child with a disability?
I failed to elaborate on the issue of rape – that’s my fault. I think that in this case abortion should be a legal alternative.
On to the failed birth control issue: Even the most ignorant of species knows that by having sex you run a very high risk of pregnancy. If you want to make absolutely sure that you do not become pregnant, don’t have sex. It’s just that simple. Furthermore, if you were to find yourself outside “the narrow two week window” and pregnant it’s my belief that you should have the baby. As you mention in your post, if you aren’t in a position to have a child, aside from not having sex, there are other options to use. Probably the most widely under/used is adoption. Millions of couples want to have children but aren’t physically able to, do you not think that they would be willing to love someone else’s child as their own? Many are even willing to pay all living and healthcare related expenses for the mother. Is the mother going to have to suffer through the pregnancy and childbirth…yes, but that’s something that she/they should have thought of prior to having sex. Again, it’s just that simple.
I’m glad that we do see ‘eye-to-eye’ that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but I think that it’s overused by society today. Saying that because I am not the gender that carries children I don’t fundamentally understand this issue is absolutely erroneous. What if a woman becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the child, but her male counterpart wants to keep it? What if he were to allow her to relinquish all parental rights to the child and pay for all related expenses, should the woman be allowed to terminate the pregnancy based solely on her own ideals? Keep in mind he had just as much to do at the time of conception as she did. Perhaps if you were of the gender that wasn’t able to carry children, yet you were able to love them and care for them just as much, yet have no say in their fate you might contemplate things quite differently.
And one more point…
No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion should be no different.
You fell into my trap. By acknowledging that there are situations where you don't know what you would do, you acknowledge that generalization is not possible. So why should a Supreme Court Justice nominee, whose job it would be to study a case based on the specific facts and laws involved and not general principles, be required to give a black & white answer to a nuanced issue?
ReplyDeleteHer response is no different than when conservative nominees, in response to the same question, state that they are dedicated to upholding the rule of law and would have to study the merits of the case. No nominee is going to answer this question.
I'm not going to address the rest of your points because we obviously aren't going to agree on this - except to say that I acknowledge that the situation where a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't is a difficult one. But as long as the debate is focused on abortions when ever where ever vs. abortions for no one ever, the topic will never recieve the nuanced look that it truly deserves.
I'll have to disagree with your opinion on her response to her feelings about abortion. A Supreme Court Justice should not let her personal opinions affect her judicial decisions. Her only guides should be the U.S. Constitution and the state or federal laws the original decision is based upon.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to her racially-leaning comments--I could see why you would be offended by them. I have never understood the double standard when it came to these types of things, but I hope that in the future, we can all be equally raked across the coals when we find ourselves with our foot in our mouths!