“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” — Søren Kierkegaard

I am of the belief that a woman is the one best suited to make her own reproductive choices.  The woman may wish to hear from other voices on the matter. She is uniquely fit to decide which other people she may wish to hear.

The man who impregnated her perhaps (or perhaps not, depending on factors best evaluated by the woman (loving relationship versus a coercive one, for example).

Her personal physician may be an honest broker that can provide insight into the risks involved in a pregnancy and the risks of an abortion.

Maybe a clergyman might be consulted.  But, in the end, I believe the woman should be the one to decide. When I refer to “the woman,” of course, I referring to a mentally competent adult. 

Children, of course are another matter. A first inclination might be to say the parents should be involved. Yes, but – let’s just say that’s not always a great idea. Incest is not common, but it’s not as rare as we’d wish. Consideration of the age of the child who is pregnant might come into play here.

There is no shortage of others who feel there is one right decision for all. Oddly, the political party that touts itself as “The Party of Freedom & Individual Liberty” is the one party that takes the one size fits all position of reproductive choices.

No abortions. No exceptions. They got a lot of ink not so long ago regarding a 10-year-old girl in Ohio, impregnated by an adult man. That’s a crime anywhere in the United States. But the child could not have a simple procedure to end the pregnancy. In Ohio.

This is not a commonplace situation. But if procedure had happened in Ohio, rather than in Indiana, it would have been illegal and prosecutable. 

Tudor Dixon, Republican nominee for governor of Michigan, has the answer for every woman and girl of childbearing age in our state. No abortion.  No exceptions. Rape? Incest? Preservation of the health of the mother? Nope. 

Abortions will continue, as always. Those with the means will travel to obtain them. Or pay for “abortion pills,” no matter whether that’s legal in their state. 

I also note there have been informal discussion in that same U.S. Supreme Court that did away with Roe v. Wade with regard to contraception. I think Justice Thomas was taking the lead in those sessions of select members. Odd, I find it, that those who espouse hatred of abortion might consider such a move.

Would doing away with contraception result in fewer abortions? Am I missing something here?