The woman's right to choose what happens to her body

Should be an inviolable right:

Inviolable:

1.	prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.

2.	incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable: inviolable secrecy.

Via Whiskey Fire, Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money discusses the passing of the Canadian Supreme Court jurist Bertha Wilson and quotes her decision on abortion in 1988:

Given then that the right to liberty guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter gives a woman the right to decide for herself whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, does s. 251 of the Criminal Code violate this right? Clearly it does. The purpose of the section is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee. Furthermore, as the Chief Justice correctly points out, at p. 56, the committee bases its decision on "criteria entirely unrelated to [the pregnant woman's] own priorities and aspirations". The fact that the decision whether a woman will be allowed to terminate her pregnancy is in the hands of a committee is just as great a violation of the woman's right to personal autonomy in decisions of an intimate and private nature as it would be if a committee were established to decide whether a woman should be allowed to continue her pregnancy. Both these arrangements violate the woman's right to liberty by deciding for her something that she has the right to decide for herself.

[...]

I agree with my colleague and I think that his comments are very germane to the instant case because, as the Chief Justice and Beetz J. point out, the present legislative scheme for the obtaining of an abortion clearly subjects pregnant women to considerable emotional stress as well as to unnecessary physical risk. I believe, however, that the flaw in the present legislative scheme goes much deeper than that. In essence, what it does is assert that the woman's capacity to reproduce is not to be subject to her own control. It is to be subject to the control of the state. She may not choose whether to exercise her existing capacity or not to exercise it. This is not, in my view, just a matter of interfering with her right to liberty in the sense (already discussed) of her right to personal autonomy in decision-making, it is a direct interference with her physical "person" as well. She is truly being treated as a means -- a means to an end which she does not desire but over which she has no control. She is the passive recipient of a decision made by others as to whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life. Can there be anything that comports less with human dignity and self-respect? How can a woman in this position have any sense of security with respect to her person? I believe that s. 251 of the Criminal Code deprives the pregnant woman of her right to security of the person as well as her right to liberty.

And now, via JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie, we have the Irish courts trying to force a 17 year old to give birth to a baby suffering from anencephaly:

The Attorney General has instructed a senior counsel to represent the unborn child at the centre of a court case being taken by a 17-year-old, who is four months pregnant, against the Health Service Executive (HSE).

The girl, who can only be identified as Miss D is challenging the legality of the HSE from preventing her from terminating her pregnancy overseas.

She has been in the care of the HSE since March and was told last week that her baby is suffering from the brain condition anencephaly, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp.

The newborn baby will live a maximum of three days.

This morning the High Court heard that senior counsel James Connolly has been instructed by the Attorney General to represent the rights of the unborn child.

They are trying to force a teenager to carry to term a baby that was going to die. This clearly describes the anti-choice agenda. The woman has no rights. She is a vessel that must carry to term anything that has been placed there by the holy sanctified sperm.



I hope the courts are forced to pay for that poor girl's therapy for years to come.