Saturday, February 28, 2009

A woman's right to choose what?

Some time ago, when the story first broke, I posted the following note to a Green Party email list.
It seems to me that those who so loudly support a woman's right to choose in the case of abortion are silent as the media constantly harps on the criticism aimed at Nadya Suleman for her decisions to have a large family through IVF.

Is there some other standard at work that would take away her right to choose?

I know that my wife wants me to write to the television stations covering the story in this manner and to tell them to s-t-f-u. She is not a welfare mom. It is not costing me any more in my taxes. What is the deal? Someone in the media defined the story and it took on a life of her own. They only people I have heard really criticize Suleman are the media who make this the story as opposed to some other way of telling it.
From that, I have received only two comments, both from men. One implied that she had been coerced into the decision by her religion. The other, referencing the question of zero population growth (ZPG), said that "Ms. Suleman the Magnificent should be public enemy #1 through Green lenses."

It makes me think of the broader implication of just how far people are willing to go to achieve their goals. Where do we, as Greens, draw the line between the freedom to make personal decisions and the collective goals of society? Would we practice any form of coercion in this case? In this case, we have calls for her forced sterilization, so my questions is not a trivial one.

No comments: