Abortion Rights

Monday March 26, 2012

     Today in class we discussed Chapter 12 -  Abortion Rights: The United States and South Africa Compared.  I was quite surprised that we did not have an all out brawl in class on the discussion topic (it tends to be a bit of a touchy subject with some people).  Fortunately, everyone got along and we had a good discussion and debate.
     One topic we touched upon was Griswold v. Connecticut.  This document dealt with the government banning the use of contraceptives because the "government has a right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."  I do not agree with this at all.  To me, the government invading the privacy between two people is quite similar to the government trying to invade religious experiences.  These matters between two people should be a private matter, unless they are doing something that is illegal.  This court case makes contraceptives legal for MARRIED people, not singles.  That again, I do not agree with because the main job of the government is to protect all citizens, not just those who are married.  This act can easily force someone to get married just so they can use contraceptives, which seems unconstitutional to me.
     In the court case Roe v. Wade Roe wanted to obtain an abortion, but the Texas government said no.  In this case, the right to privacy was the main issue.  Could a state government forbid someone to get an abortion?  The court created some restrictions for abortions.  1.)  The woman in question must let their partner know what they want to do and get consent.  2.)  If the person is younger than 18 years old they must get their parent's permission.  3.)  There is a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure.  There were also some restrictions regarding the age of viability and how old the unborn child is (which trimester the mother is in).  In many cases, the state governments have tried to put restrictions on abortion, especially for minors.
     Document 6 is a part of South Africa's Constitution.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Africa's is must more clearly stated.  There is little room for interpretations, which could be a good thing.  This is true in the section of equality:  "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law."  or "Everyone has the right to life."  or "No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor.  I think this constitution is actually very good because it clearly defines the laws, not like the U.S. Constitution that seems to dance around the subjects and can have more than one type of interpretation.  The only thing from this document that I found that could be interpreted is the freedom of expression clause.  It says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it does "not extend to a. propaganda for war, b. incitement of imminent violence, or c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm."  These parts, especially c, can (I think) be quite vague and possibly be interpreted a few different ways, like what the government considers an advocacy of hatred.
     Essay 1 states that Roe v. Wade was a mistake.  The main reason the author concludes this is because the age of children.  According to the essay, a fetus is not a child of any age.  Also, only children under the age of 18 are protected by the government.  So if a fetus is a child that does not have an age, then it cannot be protected by the government.  This raised the question "what counts as a person?"  The government had a difficult time in determining what they will count as a person, child, or anyone else that needs protection.  I personally do not know what to believe on the subject because I have mixed feelings. However, I do believe that the mother of an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, deserves protection and/or support for whatever her decision might be.  I also believe that the state and federal governments are beginning to stick themselves in personal and private matters that don't really need government assistance.  The government should take their time that they spend in other people's matters and actually do something good for the country and start trying to fix the economy, leave parenting, or lack thereof, to those whom is may concern.
     Today we also began talking about chronology and periodization.  Chronology is the order/arrangement of events based on their dates.  Historians try to put things in chronological order by putting events into sections of dates, such as 1900-1915.  Some events, such as the Cold War, can easily span more than one section of time, making it harder to place things in chronological order.  We also talked about periodization.  this is sort of like chronology, but instead of making a list of things that happened during a certain time period, historians try to label the period based on major events.  So, 1950-1970 would not be: Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy assassination, etc.  It would be something like Civil Rights Movement.  Periodization is trying to pull several events together and make a defining characteristic for them, such as "The Roaring 20s."  We had an in-class exercise in which groups tried to periodize American History and World History from 1900 until present.  This was very difficult to do, and my group started just listing events, which is chronology, not periodization.  It is very difficult to define an entire era and it can be done in many different ways, such as military, economic, political, women's perspective, global, Euro-centric, and many many more.  Like many things dealing with history, periodization is based on the author's perspective and which direction/spin they want to put on things.