In South Carolina, USA, women are subjugated to the state
I was gobsmacked by the quote in the May 24 front-page article “S.C. votes to restrict abortions at 6 weeks” from South Carolina state Sen. Tom Davis (R): “At some point in time, the right of the state to see the unborn child born does take precedent over the woman’s right to her body.” Is Mr. Davis suggesting that the six-week restriction is when the right of the state takes over?
The magical six weeks comes into play because of the suggestion that there is a “heartbeat” heard during an ultrasound very early in the pregnancy. That is a fallacy. What is heard is an electrical pulse made audible by machinery.
According to Mr. Davis and the other 26 members of the South Carolina Senate voting in favour of the six-week ban, the state could hold women hostage by their biology for an additional seven months, whether the women did or did not wish to be pregnant.
It appears the requirement that the biological father pay child support “from conception” is the woman’s consolation prize. Because many women don’t know they’re pregnant at six weeks, should potential biological fathers begin to pay child support following intercourse in the event a pregnancy ensues?
The state has a right to precedence over a man’s body when he has broken the law or has been determined to be a hazard to himself or others. But, in South Carolina, it seems to be the contention of Mr. Davis that the state has a right to precedence over a woman’s body when she has broken the law or is pregnant.
