リプロな日記

中絶問題研究者~中絶ケア・カウンセラーの塚原久美のブログです

女性が死の危険に瀕している場合を除き,すべての中絶を禁止したサウスダコタ州法は,プロチョイスの反対によって8月の施行が延期され,来る11月7日に住民投票に付されることになっている。だが,the Washington Timesによると,州民の過半数がこの法案を支持していないという。明日の(日本時間では明後日の)投票のゆくえが注目される。

住民投票に関するthe Washington Timesの記事は下記参照。

Ban on abortions trails in new poll

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2006

A South Dakota ballot measure to ban almost all abortions in the state is likely to fail by a wide margin, a new poll says.
Fifty-two percent of 800 likely voters said they would vote "no" next week on a law banning all abortions except to save the life of a mother, according to the poll, conducted for the Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D.
An additional 42 percent of voters said they would vote "yes" for the ban, and 6 percent were undecided, according to the survey, which had a margin of error of 3.5 percent and was released in the newspaper's Sunday edition.
The poll shows that "voters are seeing through the campaign of misinformation and lies" from the ban's supporters, said Jan Nicolay, co-chairwoman of South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families. "There is a growing consensus that we should keep all options open for women whose health is in jeopardy and for victims of rape and incest." (後略)

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061030-105600-4549r.htm

保守的な同州でさえ禁止法への反対色が強まっているのは,必ずしも「女性の権利支持派」の意見が広まっているためではなく,上述のとおり,レイプや近親姦などの被害者さえも出産を強制されることについての懸念が強まっているためだという。

一方,下記のエッセーでは「信教の自由」という論点から中絶禁止への不支持を表明している。すなわち,胎児が権利を有する人かどうかという点については,絶対的な答えはなく,信念の問題なのだという観点から,「プロチョイス運動の誰も,中絶の実行を強制したり,奨励しさえもしていないし,望んでいない誰かに中絶を押しつけることもありえない。だがそれと同じように,“プロライフ”と名乗る人々も,自らの信念を法を通じて他人に強制する権利などない」と主張している。

The right to believe
By Brad B. Randall
Sioux Falls
PUBLISHED: November 4, 2006

I have noticed that, despite their diversity, almost all of the letters regarding the upcoming abortion referendum have had two things in common. Most have talked about rights - rights of the mother and rights of the unborn child. And almost every letter somewhere has either said, "... I believe ..." or has alluded to the writer's religious beliefs.

There is another right in play in this issue. That is the right to believe. No matter how firmly held, the allegation that a fertilized ovum, or even a 14-week gestation fetus, has inherent rights is truly a belief and not a fact. I wouldn't begin to challenge anyone's belief in the rights of the unborn - because it is his or her right to that belief. It is, however, a belief that neither I, nor at least a sizeable minority of South Dakotans, happen to share.

This country was founded on a principle of religious freedom, which means that we have a civic obligation to tolerate beliefs that might be abhorrent to our own personal religious beliefs. This implies a tolerance in the sense that we can voice our beliefs but not force our beliefs on others. No one in the pro-choice movement is forcing or even encouraging the practice of abortion; they certainly aren't forcing abortions on anyone who doesn't want one. But in the same spirit, those that call themselves "pro-life" have no right to force their beliefs via legislation on others.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006611040334

これはプロチョイスにはよく見られる論理展開であり,リベラル派の多くを占めている考え方でもある。プロチョイスは「女性の権利擁護」,プロライフは「胎児の権利擁護」と短絡的に考えられがちだが,実際には,アメリカのプロチョイスのなかには,必ずしも「女性の権利擁護」を支持しているわけではない人々がいる。むしろ,「女性の保護」や「自由の擁護」のために中絶権を支持している人々も多く含まれているのである。