sorry for the delay in my response to you. i've been very busy. i will attempt to pinpoint specifics in our exchange on twitter.
to begin, you stated i was putting too much focus on terminology. if memory serves me correctly, the terminology in question was the use of the word "murder". i focus on this word specifically because your equating abortion with murder results in your accusing all women who have had abortion of murder. when confronted with this you argued that you never actually called anyone a murderer. but let's look again: if you say someone is guilty of murder, what would that render them? a hamster? an acrobat? no. if one is guilty of murder, they would in fact be a murderer. despite what anyone else may have taught you in the past, words do indeed hurt. and making such hateful claims against women who have had to make this already difficult choice is nothing other than a deliberate verbal assault. changing that word to "killer", "demoness", "blood-thirsty harlot", "abortion whore", or any other in the colourful myriad of hateful names i've had the so-called prolife sling at me, is still the same thing - a deliberate attempt to cause hurt to the recipient of these words. and dancing around actually coming right out and saying it, as you have done, does not change the true intent of the statements.
so you didn't technically call me a murderer. hell, you technically didn't even say that i personally am guilty of murder. but what you said is that abortion is murder, thus women who have abortions are guilty of murder. there's not many conclusions this line of thinking can result in. A + B = C.
now stop waltzing away from the reality of your own statements, own it, own the fact that it is said to cause hurt (whether you're doing it deliberately or just parroting what you've been taught to do), and either opt to STOP it or at least have the jockey junk to admit to it.
regarding your comment about rape and abuse previously having no laws prohibiting them: both of those acts cause deliberate, malicious harm to the body of a sentient being. please notice that i am not refering to the individual as a "human being". that is honestly not important to me. i don't care if it's a human, a hamster, or a hedgehog. if it is sentient, thrives independently of some form of life support, and has the capacity to suffer, its bodily autonomy is to be protected. and therein lies the difference between a fetus and its host: the host has all of the above; the fetus has none. the needs of the host have to be placed above those of the fetus because of this.
this brings us back to the legality of assaults: rape and abuses DO violate the autonomy of a sentient, independent, and suffering being. the one who will suffer is the one we must protect. that's all there is to it. the host will be the one to experience illness, poverty, loss of job/income/housing/support, lack of medical care, severe depression, inability to provide for however many other children they already have, etc. the zygote will not experience this. nor will the blastocyst, the embryo, or the fetus. no, only the host and perhapse the other sentient beings in the host's immediate care.
that's all i've got for now. feel free to respond.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Trisha's New Playlist
Berlin - Metro
Florence and the Machine - Cosmic Love
Adele - Rolling in the Deep
Dresden Dolls - Sex Changes (video embed disabled, so here's the link)
http://youtu.be/eO-dT913Zmg
Dresden Dolls - Shores of California
Amanda Palmer - Guitar Hero (again, cockblocked by disabled embedding)
http://youtu.be/wWZu6NWJkHw
Amanda Palmer - Astronaut
Franz Ferdinand - Walk Away
Kelly Clarkson - Walk Away (you have Nathan to thank for this one :p)
Franz Ferdinand - No You Girls
Ludo - Love Me Dead
Florence and the Machine - Cosmic Love
Adele - Rolling in the Deep
Dresden Dolls - Sex Changes (video embed disabled, so here's the link)
http://youtu.be/eO-dT913Zmg
Dresden Dolls - Shores of California
Amanda Palmer - Guitar Hero (again, cockblocked by disabled embedding)
http://youtu.be/wWZu6NWJkHw
Amanda Palmer - Astronaut
Franz Ferdinand - Walk Away
Kelly Clarkson - Walk Away (you have Nathan to thank for this one :p)
Franz Ferdinand - No You Girls
Ludo - Love Me Dead
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Capt Obvious Edition: The Compulsive List-Maker vs. Islamophobia
Capt Obvious Edition: The Compulsive List-Maker v Islamiphobia
This post was originally supposed to be a Facebook response to a family member who posted a terribly erroneous letter from a minister friend of his. Alas, Facebook had other ideas regarding my post, and in a rebellious hickup, it was deleted. To avoid any future hickups, and to simply be able to state my piece, I've opted to just serve up some copypasta and rewrite my response without cursing people with the hassle of lengthy Facebook comments. Behold: The Erroneous Facebook Note:
A slap in the face of all of Americans who will awaken and become aware and angered!!
We remember the horrible act of war a few years ago when Islamists murdered more than 3,000 innocent people. Now they plan to add insult to injury by building a monument, not to religion nor religious freedom, but to militant Islamic Victory. I'm sick and tired of liberal media calling on us to be tolerant. Follow the money and see who is financing this $100 million mega mosque. To date, they have refused to reveal where this money is coming from. How dumb can we be. This is obviously Arab money, contributed to the building of a monument of victory. Don't be deceived when you hear these evil men speak of non-Muslim houses of worship within Cordoba. They aim to build a 13 story monument to their victory. Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest. Do your homework. Cordoba, Spain is the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over Christians in Spain.
They transformed a church there into the third largest mosque complex.
Don't be deceived by the lying_ propaganda. I've studied 1,600 years of Muslim history. I've watched their bloody conquests. September 11, 2001 is not a sudden change. Muslims have long looked upon The United States as the big Satan and they seek to overthrow our entire western world. Their aim has not changed in 1600 years.
How dare they talk about religious tolerance. We had brethren, more than a few, who went to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields and refineries. We have had more than a few military families who lived there for a time. No houses of worship were tolerated. Bibles were burned. Women have no rights. Not even a sign can be erected indicating where Christians may meet. Have we forgotten the celebrations in the Arab world immediately following 9/11? Have we forgotten Western newsmen beheaded publicly and film of this sent world wide?
Military personnel have repeatedly warned us of such attacks. Years ago General North warned us of the Osama Ben Laden potential. No one paid attention and the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were bombed. A fourth plane was to bomb either the White House or the Capital. Now learned men of war, who have access to far more data than you or I, tell us to expect more attacks. This has been their practice for more than 1600 years. They have not changed!
One unknown preacher in Florida threatened to burn a copy of the Koran. He attracted world attention. He got word from the Pope. Our President called him. Something is terribly out of focus. Certainly the preacher was more than foolish, but the Muslims have burned every Bible they can get their hands on. Where's the outrage?
They demand the privilege to build a 13 story mosque in a city that already had dozens of mosques. Their population there hardly demands another house of worship. More is involved than just providing a place to bow and face Mecca. Their aim is world control. This has been their aim and we are enemy No. 1.
Their design is to undermine and overthrow Western civilization and with it goes our freedom to worship. Find a place in the Muslim world where Christians are free to worship. Find me a synagogue in Saudi Arabia. Know this, Cordoba House is not primarily a house of worship. They have many houses of worship all over New York. It will be a monument for their victory over the Western Civilization. Wise men need to take heed before it is too late.
John M. Davis, Minister of 50+ years, Ridgewood Church of Christ
Beaumont, TX
1. This building is not a mosque. I know of no mosques in the world that are equipt with swimming pool, fitness center, performing arts theatre, daycare center, or a culinary school. The fact that it has a single prayer room amidst all 13 of its floor can no more qualify it as a mosque than a hospital having a chapel qualifies it as a Cathedral.
2. Refering to the community center as a "militant Islamic Victory" is a matter of propaganda-feuled opinion. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate such a claim. Such a statement goes well beyond opinion and launches directly into outright libel.
3. Cordoba, Spain is not renound for "Muslim conquest". Yes there was a Muslim conquest involved. But the famous part is the 275+ years of "The Golden Age of Religious Tolerance". While Islam was the dominant faith, and technically Christians and Jews were considered second-class citizens, people of differing faith were in fact allowed to practice their religions freely and without persecution. This is a pretty big deal when talking about the year 756. The "Cordoba House", as it is refered to here, was named for this age of tolerace and peace. But all of this is beside the point seeing as how the center is actually named Park51.
4. In the second and fourth paragraphs of this piece, the word "Arab" is used to describe Muslims. This idea boils with intense racism. The truth is that 65% of the world's Muslims are actually ASIAN, not ARAB. But I don't see anyone protesting the presence of Islamic Indonesians. No, they protest the presence of those brown guys with the funny towel-hat thingy. Arab and Muslim are not exclusive to one another. Just like Muslim and terrorist are not exclusive to one another either. The use of "Arab" to describe Muslims, as it most often is these days, is proof that this is Islamophobia is actually rooted in xenophobia and has little to do with the religion itself.
5. The assertion that Islam has had a 1600 year old goal of bringing down the US, I feel, speaks to it's own absurdity seeing as how the US didn't exist 1600 years ago.
6. On the reference of religious tolerance: so Saudi Arabia is incredibly oppressive towards differing faith, women, etc. They are victim of a theocratic monarchy. I would think that the religious right would understand enforcing beliefs via theocracy seeing as how they are desperately pushing for one. There is a tremendous difference between religion, politics, and politicians weilding religion as a weapon against people. The US really hasn't much room to complain about that considering our own history of religious oppression. And by religious oppression I of course mean the use of religion to oppress others, which was the case in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also only one country of dozens whose primary faith is Islam. This article deliberately leaves out the fact that countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen do not criminalize Christianity the way Islamiphobes would have us believe. Yes, omitting facts IS the equivalent of lying.
7. "Bloody Conquests": Its undeniable that Islam has a very violent history. That's because religion has a violent history. A Christian calling out Islam on historic violence is much like a meat eater calling out someone wearing fur on animal cruelty. I do believe the bible had something to say about that: "Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". Christianity has it's own incredibly bloody past: the Crusades, the witch hunts of Europe and New England, the Black Plague (Christianity can be held responsible for this: the witch hunts lead to the killing of cats on the grounds that they were "witches"; this caused the rodent population to flourish and easily spread the disease that killed so many). More recently, we have the murders of doctors such as the late George Tiller, the brutal beatings and killing of gay/trans people, and a 15 year old girl having to stand before her church and APOLOGISE TO HER RAPIST FOR CAUSING TEMPTATION, and the violence against women that was allowed as they were seen as "property" of their husbands. And to that I say: Pot, I believe you haven't yet met Kettle.
8. Have you ever actually met a Muslim who "have burned every Bible they can get their hands on"? I know I haven't. All of the Muslims I've met were more concerned with other things: providing for their families, sending their kids to college, what to cook for dinner. How utterly arrogant of America and/or Christians to honestly believe that the Islamic communities have nothing better to do with their time than sit around and obsess about what we're doing. Terrorists ordained us "enemy number 1", not Islam. And, for whatever reason, conservative America was all to happy to take the label and run with it. The only possible explanation that I can muster is that this kind of behavior makes people feel important. And, as errybody knows, a bunch of privileged white folk screaming "oppression!" is a hot button attention getter.
9. What celebrations in the Arab world are you refering to exactly? The ones that were exclusive to Al Queda and the Taliban? The exact same groups that the rest of the world's Muslims try to distance themselves from? I'll say it again: Islam and terrorism are not mutually exclusive, nor is Islam and Arab. Can you show me any other Muslim group that celebrated 9/11 that was not associated with religious extremism? I'm betting you can't.
10. I fail to see how some Muslims building something demonstrates "victory over Western civilization", seeing as how there has been no such victory (from what I can tell our civilization is still pretty damn Westernized). Unless you are also willing to consider Jewish synagogues to be essentially the same thing. In which case this also means that Roman Catholic Churches mean we've been dominated by Roman Catholicism and that Volkswagens being manufactured in the US means we're fallen under German control.
11. The author of this post described Park51 in the first and sixth paragraph as a mosque, but in the final paragraph states: "Know this, Cordoba House is not primarily a house of worship." So which is it? Is it a mosque or not a mosque? He can't have it both ways. As we've already established earlier on in this response, it is in fact not a mosque. Even our author finally makes a truthful statement in admitting it isn't. So if it isn't a mosque, why all the fuss about it being one? He descredited himself and destroyed his arguement in his own closing statement.
This post was originally supposed to be a Facebook response to a family member who posted a terribly erroneous letter from a minister friend of his. Alas, Facebook had other ideas regarding my post, and in a rebellious hickup, it was deleted. To avoid any future hickups, and to simply be able to state my piece, I've opted to just serve up some copypasta and rewrite my response without cursing people with the hassle of lengthy Facebook comments. Behold: The Erroneous Facebook Note:
A slap in the face of all of Americans who will awaken and become aware and angered!!
We remember the horrible act of war a few years ago when Islamists murdered more than 3,000 innocent people. Now they plan to add insult to injury by building a monument, not to religion nor religious freedom, but to militant Islamic Victory. I'm sick and tired of liberal media calling on us to be tolerant. Follow the money and see who is financing this $100 million mega mosque. To date, they have refused to reveal where this money is coming from. How dumb can we be. This is obviously Arab money, contributed to the building of a monument of victory. Don't be deceived when you hear these evil men speak of non-Muslim houses of worship within Cordoba. They aim to build a 13 story monument to their victory. Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest. Do your homework. Cordoba, Spain is the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over Christians in Spain.
They transformed a church there into the third largest mosque complex.
Don't be deceived by the lying_ propaganda. I've studied 1,600 years of Muslim history. I've watched their bloody conquests. September 11, 2001 is not a sudden change. Muslims have long looked upon The United States as the big Satan and they seek to overthrow our entire western world. Their aim has not changed in 1600 years.
How dare they talk about religious tolerance. We had brethren, more than a few, who went to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields and refineries. We have had more than a few military families who lived there for a time. No houses of worship were tolerated. Bibles were burned. Women have no rights. Not even a sign can be erected indicating where Christians may meet. Have we forgotten the celebrations in the Arab world immediately following 9/11? Have we forgotten Western newsmen beheaded publicly and film of this sent world wide?
Military personnel have repeatedly warned us of such attacks. Years ago General North warned us of the Osama Ben Laden potential. No one paid attention and the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were bombed. A fourth plane was to bomb either the White House or the Capital. Now learned men of war, who have access to far more data than you or I, tell us to expect more attacks. This has been their practice for more than 1600 years. They have not changed!
One unknown preacher in Florida threatened to burn a copy of the Koran. He attracted world attention. He got word from the Pope. Our President called him. Something is terribly out of focus. Certainly the preacher was more than foolish, but the Muslims have burned every Bible they can get their hands on. Where's the outrage?
They demand the privilege to build a 13 story mosque in a city that already had dozens of mosques. Their population there hardly demands another house of worship. More is involved than just providing a place to bow and face Mecca. Their aim is world control. This has been their aim and we are enemy No. 1.
Their design is to undermine and overthrow Western civilization and with it goes our freedom to worship. Find a place in the Muslim world where Christians are free to worship. Find me a synagogue in Saudi Arabia. Know this, Cordoba House is not primarily a house of worship. They have many houses of worship all over New York. It will be a monument for their victory over the Western Civilization. Wise men need to take heed before it is too late.
John M. Davis, Minister of 50+ years, Ridgewood Church of Christ
Beaumont, TX
1. This building is not a mosque. I know of no mosques in the world that are equipt with swimming pool, fitness center, performing arts theatre, daycare center, or a culinary school. The fact that it has a single prayer room amidst all 13 of its floor can no more qualify it as a mosque than a hospital having a chapel qualifies it as a Cathedral.
2. Refering to the community center as a "militant Islamic Victory" is a matter of propaganda-feuled opinion. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate such a claim. Such a statement goes well beyond opinion and launches directly into outright libel.
3. Cordoba, Spain is not renound for "Muslim conquest". Yes there was a Muslim conquest involved. But the famous part is the 275+ years of "The Golden Age of Religious Tolerance". While Islam was the dominant faith, and technically Christians and Jews were considered second-class citizens, people of differing faith were in fact allowed to practice their religions freely and without persecution. This is a pretty big deal when talking about the year 756. The "Cordoba House", as it is refered to here, was named for this age of tolerace and peace. But all of this is beside the point seeing as how the center is actually named Park51.
4. In the second and fourth paragraphs of this piece, the word "Arab" is used to describe Muslims. This idea boils with intense racism. The truth is that 65% of the world's Muslims are actually ASIAN, not ARAB. But I don't see anyone protesting the presence of Islamic Indonesians. No, they protest the presence of those brown guys with the funny towel-hat thingy. Arab and Muslim are not exclusive to one another. Just like Muslim and terrorist are not exclusive to one another either. The use of "Arab" to describe Muslims, as it most often is these days, is proof that this is Islamophobia is actually rooted in xenophobia and has little to do with the religion itself.
5. The assertion that Islam has had a 1600 year old goal of bringing down the US, I feel, speaks to it's own absurdity seeing as how the US didn't exist 1600 years ago.
6. On the reference of religious tolerance: so Saudi Arabia is incredibly oppressive towards differing faith, women, etc. They are victim of a theocratic monarchy. I would think that the religious right would understand enforcing beliefs via theocracy seeing as how they are desperately pushing for one. There is a tremendous difference between religion, politics, and politicians weilding religion as a weapon against people. The US really hasn't much room to complain about that considering our own history of religious oppression. And by religious oppression I of course mean the use of religion to oppress others, which was the case in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also only one country of dozens whose primary faith is Islam. This article deliberately leaves out the fact that countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen do not criminalize Christianity the way Islamiphobes would have us believe. Yes, omitting facts IS the equivalent of lying.
7. "Bloody Conquests": Its undeniable that Islam has a very violent history. That's because religion has a violent history. A Christian calling out Islam on historic violence is much like a meat eater calling out someone wearing fur on animal cruelty. I do believe the bible had something to say about that: "Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". Christianity has it's own incredibly bloody past: the Crusades, the witch hunts of Europe and New England, the Black Plague (Christianity can be held responsible for this: the witch hunts lead to the killing of cats on the grounds that they were "witches"; this caused the rodent population to flourish and easily spread the disease that killed so many). More recently, we have the murders of doctors such as the late George Tiller, the brutal beatings and killing of gay/trans people, and a 15 year old girl having to stand before her church and APOLOGISE TO HER RAPIST FOR CAUSING TEMPTATION, and the violence against women that was allowed as they were seen as "property" of their husbands. And to that I say: Pot, I believe you haven't yet met Kettle.
8. Have you ever actually met a Muslim who "have burned every Bible they can get their hands on"? I know I haven't. All of the Muslims I've met were more concerned with other things: providing for their families, sending their kids to college, what to cook for dinner. How utterly arrogant of America and/or Christians to honestly believe that the Islamic communities have nothing better to do with their time than sit around and obsess about what we're doing. Terrorists ordained us "enemy number 1", not Islam. And, for whatever reason, conservative America was all to happy to take the label and run with it. The only possible explanation that I can muster is that this kind of behavior makes people feel important. And, as errybody knows, a bunch of privileged white folk screaming "oppression!" is a hot button attention getter.
9. What celebrations in the Arab world are you refering to exactly? The ones that were exclusive to Al Queda and the Taliban? The exact same groups that the rest of the world's Muslims try to distance themselves from? I'll say it again: Islam and terrorism are not mutually exclusive, nor is Islam and Arab. Can you show me any other Muslim group that celebrated 9/11 that was not associated with religious extremism? I'm betting you can't.
10. I fail to see how some Muslims building something demonstrates "victory over Western civilization", seeing as how there has been no such victory (from what I can tell our civilization is still pretty damn Westernized). Unless you are also willing to consider Jewish synagogues to be essentially the same thing. In which case this also means that Roman Catholic Churches mean we've been dominated by Roman Catholicism and that Volkswagens being manufactured in the US means we're fallen under German control.
11. The author of this post described Park51 in the first and sixth paragraph as a mosque, but in the final paragraph states: "Know this, Cordoba House is not primarily a house of worship." So which is it? Is it a mosque or not a mosque? He can't have it both ways. As we've already established earlier on in this response, it is in fact not a mosque. Even our author finally makes a truthful statement in admitting it isn't. So if it isn't a mosque, why all the fuss about it being one? He descredited himself and destroyed his arguement in his own closing statement.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Great Fungibility Fallacy
Fungibility: "the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. Examples of highly fungible commodities are crude oil, wheat, orange juice, precious metals, and currencies."
Fallacy: "usually incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception."
If you haven't been keeping up with the HR3 news, here's a recap: There's no such thing as federal funding for abortions. Unless, of course, you believe that PAP smears, contraception, cancer screenings and treatment, WIC appointments, STI tests/treatments, and, in some cases, in vitro fertilization, all somehow consist of procuring abortions.
Why is this relevant? Because today our House votes on the "No Taxpayer Funding For Oompaloopas Act". Oops. I mean "Abortion" - "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act". Our trusted government officials are wasting taxpayer dollars voting to defund and restrict from using taxpayer dollars something that is already, and has been since 1976, restricted from using taxpayer dollars. So yeah. They're defunding a unicorn. It all comes down to Title X and the funding of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides abortions. Not every clinic provides that specific service. But they all provide very vital services for all people regarding reproductive health. And they all keep their doors open through funding of Title X.
Since 1976 and the passing of the Hyde Amendment, federally funded health services (such as Planned Parenthood) who provide abortion services were prohibited from using any of the funding to assist with the cost of an abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's health. Even with such exceptions, getting approval for that coverage is near impossible; thus only 191 women were covered in 2008. But even though the conservatives got their way and cut off health care assistance to the poor women who probably need it most (and that's all the Hyde Amendment did, I assure you), the conservatives still aren't satisfied. They want to strip all federal funding from these clinics so they can protect their tax dollars from being used for abortions. Oh, wait. They're not? Oh. Well then I just don't want my tax dollars being used for a clinic that provides that service despite the fact that not one cent of my money will touch "the unspeakable procedure". I'm going to play this card in the name of Fungibility.
The idea goes as such: that if our money goes to Planned Parenthood, it doesn't matter that our money is kept separate from abortion provision. It only matters that our money went to Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that it would be used for such services as preventing the further need for abortion. Their thinking is that if it goes to the same clinic, then, in a round-about way, it still pays for abortion no matter how separate the funding is.
At face value, this may seem like a logical line of thinking. But when talking about federal funding so accidentally and loosely being applied to something someone doesn't like, we have to be all-inclusive. While the rest of the world knows that federal tax dollars don't fund abortion procedures, when looked at through the fungibility fallacy it turns out that all federal tax dollars apparently pay for all abortion procedures.
1. The woman who rides the bus to the clinic is using federal funding in two ways: the bus itself and the road that was paved using taxpayer dollars.
2. If she is low income and thus on welfare, the money she didn't have to spend on food was used to pay for her procedure.
3. Law Enforcement protects the clinics, clinic workers, and the patients from harm. This includes the FBI who have to clean up after such anti-choice messes as the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the Pensacola bombings of 1984.
4. Every government employee's salary is paid by taxpayers. In the event that any one of those employees, for any reason, sought an abortion, you paid for it.
5. Federal grants for college have a few ways they contribute to abortion access. The first being: MED SCHOOL. I think that one speaks for itself. The second: financial aid refund checks. Yeah, the one that students have to stretch out across the semester to ensure they can survive. In more than a few cases I can assure you her survival consisted of scraping together what the private abortion funds couldn't cover.
And those are only a few ways that your tax dollars are "fungible" when it comes to abortion. And it has nothing to do with what money Planned Parenthood gets. You see, even if you do succeed in destroying the only access to adequate reproductive health care that poor people have, you will still, under the great law of Fungibility, still be paying for these abortions. Your only solution, in this case, will be to stop paving roads, sending people to college, having a police department, or paying government employees. In other words, you'd have to stop paying taxes completely.
But the rational choice would be to drop all this HR3 crap and keep all funding for Planned Parenthood to ensure the further prevention of that which you don't want. Defunding them to prevent abortion is as counterproductive as trying to stop war by attacking other countries or setting something on fire to cool it off. That said, it's time to do the responsible thing and contact your state representatives. Stop letting a complete fallacy strip impoverished people of their right to reproductive health care.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Common Sense: Capt. Obvious Edition
We all know that common sense isn't exactly a great friend of the antichoice community. Most antis I've encountered treat common sense as a mortal enemy. This, I fear, may have swept part way into the prochoice community as well. Not that we lack common sense at all, but more that we allow ourselves to be so sucked into their desperate graspings that we have begun to overlook the simplest, most obvious facts that crush their reasonless screechings. I fear we've begun letting them derail us. Here's a few things I've noticed.
Example 1: Lila "Ruse" and her Planned Parenthood "Stings".
I'm sure we're all aware by now of Lila's "work" (I'm sure it would make great fiction!). But to recap, she had actors enter several Planned Parenthood facilities posing as sex traffickers requesting the assistance of Planned Parenthood in treating underage, illegal girls. Listening to the hype being passed around the antichoice groups these videos are "proof" of Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child prostitution rings.
Really? It's proof? If these videos were such concrete evidence of these hideous, felonious accusations, why did they need a vote to defund Planned Parenthood? Anyone else accused of such a thing would have been promptly arrested. A full scale FBI investigation would have been launched. The doors of every Planned Parenthood facility would have been closed immediately. But that's not at all what happened. In fact, it is Live Action Films being investigated for their little game, is it not?
Example 2: The Kill Doctors Act
The excuse being used for this one is self defense. The idea is that if a fetus is in some kind of imminent danger, another party can intervene using deadly force if necessary. Those supporting this bill insist this is for the woman's protection, to protect her from assaults that could potentially harm her fetus. They also claim that the prochoice community is just making up batty propaganda to aide abusers.
But, wait, what was that? To protect her? But doesn't that already exist? Oh yes. I believe they call it Self Defense. After all, if the woman isn't consenting to an abortion, how would a person damage a fetus without first causing harm to the woman? They couldn't. The only way a potential abuser has to get to a fetus is through that woman's body. If she, or someone else, shot that person in the face, I have no doubt it would labeled as Justifiable Homicide. Because that person would have had to beat her pregnancy to its end. It would have been an assault.
Example 3: The Supposedly High Revenue Planned Parenthood Has From Abortion
I've been seeing arguments that 1/3 of Planned Parenthoods income is from abortion. I've yet to see anything substantiating this claim, just the statements antis have regurgitated from one another.
Disclaimer: I have no data to back this one up, but bear with me. This is working solely from a Common Sense Theory and very little knowledge of economics.
We know that federal funding is restricted from paying for abortions. All federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives goes to non-abortion related services: contraception, cancer screenings, prenatal care, parenting classes, adoption, WIC access, etc. We all know the list. It's a huge one. We also know that only 3% of Planned Parenthoods services are abortion care. So if it's only 3% of their services, doesn't it seem disproportionate that 1/3 of their income is from that tiny number of abortions? No. Not really. First, I sincerely doubt that abortion accounts for that much of their annual revenue. But, even if it did, it would make still make sense. They don't receive federal funding for it! It's the one service women have to pay out of pocket for without assistance unless they are fortunate enough to get assistance from a private abortion fund. It would be the same story if they restricted federal funding for any other service Planned Parenthood offered. If women had to pay out of pocket for PAP smears, then PAPs would account for a high portion of Planned Parenthoods income. That income is so high because that's what the antis want it to be. It simply signifies that they cut federal funding for abortions. They shouldn't act so surprised when they pushed to cut assistance to women in need and it happened.
Yes, I know that this post is very sloppy. I am tired. Let me know if I need to adjust something. Or, hell, if I'm just plain mistaken!
Example 1: Lila "Ruse" and her Planned Parenthood "Stings".
I'm sure we're all aware by now of Lila's "work" (I'm sure it would make great fiction!). But to recap, she had actors enter several Planned Parenthood facilities posing as sex traffickers requesting the assistance of Planned Parenthood in treating underage, illegal girls. Listening to the hype being passed around the antichoice groups these videos are "proof" of Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child prostitution rings.
Really? It's proof? If these videos were such concrete evidence of these hideous, felonious accusations, why did they need a vote to defund Planned Parenthood? Anyone else accused of such a thing would have been promptly arrested. A full scale FBI investigation would have been launched. The doors of every Planned Parenthood facility would have been closed immediately. But that's not at all what happened. In fact, it is Live Action Films being investigated for their little game, is it not?
Example 2: The Kill Doctors Act
The excuse being used for this one is self defense. The idea is that if a fetus is in some kind of imminent danger, another party can intervene using deadly force if necessary. Those supporting this bill insist this is for the woman's protection, to protect her from assaults that could potentially harm her fetus. They also claim that the prochoice community is just making up batty propaganda to aide abusers.
But, wait, what was that? To protect her? But doesn't that already exist? Oh yes. I believe they call it Self Defense. After all, if the woman isn't consenting to an abortion, how would a person damage a fetus without first causing harm to the woman? They couldn't. The only way a potential abuser has to get to a fetus is through that woman's body. If she, or someone else, shot that person in the face, I have no doubt it would labeled as Justifiable Homicide. Because that person would have had to beat her pregnancy to its end. It would have been an assault.
Example 3: The Supposedly High Revenue Planned Parenthood Has From Abortion
I've been seeing arguments that 1/3 of Planned Parenthoods income is from abortion. I've yet to see anything substantiating this claim, just the statements antis have regurgitated from one another.
Disclaimer: I have no data to back this one up, but bear with me. This is working solely from a Common Sense Theory and very little knowledge of economics.
We know that federal funding is restricted from paying for abortions. All federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives goes to non-abortion related services: contraception, cancer screenings, prenatal care, parenting classes, adoption, WIC access, etc. We all know the list. It's a huge one. We also know that only 3% of Planned Parenthoods services are abortion care. So if it's only 3% of their services, doesn't it seem disproportionate that 1/3 of their income is from that tiny number of abortions? No. Not really. First, I sincerely doubt that abortion accounts for that much of their annual revenue. But, even if it did, it would make still make sense. They don't receive federal funding for it! It's the one service women have to pay out of pocket for without assistance unless they are fortunate enough to get assistance from a private abortion fund. It would be the same story if they restricted federal funding for any other service Planned Parenthood offered. If women had to pay out of pocket for PAP smears, then PAPs would account for a high portion of Planned Parenthoods income. That income is so high because that's what the antis want it to be. It simply signifies that they cut federal funding for abortions. They shouldn't act so surprised when they pushed to cut assistance to women in need and it happened.
Yes, I know that this post is very sloppy. I am tired. Let me know if I need to adjust something. Or, hell, if I'm just plain mistaken!
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Furthermore (Trigger Warning)
On a side note, I feel I should include not only what I Mean When I say Choice, but also how I feel Choice pertains to me specifically.
The prochoice community has long heard the argument from the antis of the Holy Trinity of Abortion Exceptions: rape, incest, medical necessity. What nice, neat little boxes they are. Too bad life is never nice or neat, nor do the lives of women fit into neat little boxes. Today I’m going to elaborate on pregnancy by rape and how I feel differently about it now than I did as an antichoicer.
There is no denying that sexual assault is quite probably the single worst thing anyone could ever experience. To have one’s right to their own body and their own safety stripped from them is the single worst act I can think of. Until we review the aftermath. Not only is this person (specific to this post, this woman) violated and robbed of her bodily autonomy, but then she faces the chances of a pregnancy that was the result of violence. This is where the Holy Trinity of Abortion Exceptions comes in to play. Even most antis will say “Well if she was raped, then it’s not her fault! She should have an abortion if that happens.”
Really? She “should”? How is telling a rape survivor that she should have an abortion any different than telling her she shouldn’t? Both indicate pressure against the survivor to “choose” one thing specifically. It’s not much of a choice if someone is making it for you, is it? “Shouldn’t” she have the authority to choose what’s best for her in that situation?
Conversely, we have the argument from the other side of the antis crying out “But it’s not the BAYBEEZ fault! She should have it! Don’t kill the BAYBEE!!” We’re pretty well used to these types. But for the sake of argument: NO!!! No she shouldn’t! She shouldn’t do anything that isn’t her decision completely!
This barking at rape survivors about what they should/shouldn’t do in the event of pregnancy is ALL antichoice. Those of you in the Holy Trinity group, maybe the best thing for this woman wouldn’t be an abortion. Those of you in the No Exceptions group, maybe having this child would be the worst thing for her. And for both of you, the only right choice IS. HER. CHOICE. End of discussion, guys! It is HER mental stability at stake. It is HER physical health at stake. Not yours. You have no clue what she should or shouldn’t do because it isn’t your mind, your body, or your life.
It’s something I’ve thought of over and over again, not only as a prochoice woman, but also as a rape survivor. Had someone asked me years ago, when my mind was still riddled with antichoice propaganda, I would have said that in the situation of sexual assault I would probably seek an abortion. Interestingly, had one asked me even years before that (and under even heavier layers of propaganda) I would have felt it was my obligation to carry that pregnancy. But now… that has changed for me. Prochoice has taught me that IT. IS. MY. CHOICE. If the circumstances are mine, even if they were beyond my control, the choice is mine. Even the choice to continue a pregnancy that most would consider damaging, the choice is still mine! No one can take that from me!
Once that thought occurred to me, I realized that, were I suffer an assault again, I really firmly believe that were I to become pregnant I’d continue the pregnancy and be able to raise that child. Of course, this is me thinking hypothetically and in hindsight. Were this to happen to me again (God willing, or what other Powers That Be, I hope it never does) I could very well feel differently. But that is still prochoice. The fact that I have the right to choose for myself, to choose for my life under any circumstances, is prochoice. And for an anti to tell a woman like me that I “should” choose abortion because it would be due to rape only further proves how antichoice they truly are. They don’t just want to oppose abortion. They want to oppose every choice a woman wants to make for herself.
Now please don’t mistake what I’ve said about myself as an indication that I would oppose abortion after a sexual assault for any woman. That is not at all the case. I would never impose what is good for me as an obligation for someone else. Hell, I wouldn’t oppose it for any woman under any circumstance. This simply me stating how being prochoice has put my life and my rights back in my hands, and in no one else’s. I have the right to choose what’s best for me, even if that’s choosing to keep a pregnancy that resulted from rape. Prochoice gave me back my mind, my body, and my right to decide in the best interest of me.
The prochoice community has long heard the argument from the antis of the Holy Trinity of Abortion Exceptions: rape, incest, medical necessity. What nice, neat little boxes they are. Too bad life is never nice or neat, nor do the lives of women fit into neat little boxes. Today I’m going to elaborate on pregnancy by rape and how I feel differently about it now than I did as an antichoicer.
There is no denying that sexual assault is quite probably the single worst thing anyone could ever experience. To have one’s right to their own body and their own safety stripped from them is the single worst act I can think of. Until we review the aftermath. Not only is this person (specific to this post, this woman) violated and robbed of her bodily autonomy, but then she faces the chances of a pregnancy that was the result of violence. This is where the Holy Trinity of Abortion Exceptions comes in to play. Even most antis will say “Well if she was raped, then it’s not her fault! She should have an abortion if that happens.”
Really? She “should”? How is telling a rape survivor that she should have an abortion any different than telling her she shouldn’t? Both indicate pressure against the survivor to “choose” one thing specifically. It’s not much of a choice if someone is making it for you, is it? “Shouldn’t” she have the authority to choose what’s best for her in that situation?
Conversely, we have the argument from the other side of the antis crying out “But it’s not the BAYBEEZ fault! She should have it! Don’t kill the BAYBEE!!” We’re pretty well used to these types. But for the sake of argument: NO!!! No she shouldn’t! She shouldn’t do anything that isn’t her decision completely!
This barking at rape survivors about what they should/shouldn’t do in the event of pregnancy is ALL antichoice. Those of you in the Holy Trinity group, maybe the best thing for this woman wouldn’t be an abortion. Those of you in the No Exceptions group, maybe having this child would be the worst thing for her. And for both of you, the only right choice IS. HER. CHOICE. End of discussion, guys! It is HER mental stability at stake. It is HER physical health at stake. Not yours. You have no clue what she should or shouldn’t do because it isn’t your mind, your body, or your life.
It’s something I’ve thought of over and over again, not only as a prochoice woman, but also as a rape survivor. Had someone asked me years ago, when my mind was still riddled with antichoice propaganda, I would have said that in the situation of sexual assault I would probably seek an abortion. Interestingly, had one asked me even years before that (and under even heavier layers of propaganda) I would have felt it was my obligation to carry that pregnancy. But now… that has changed for me. Prochoice has taught me that IT. IS. MY. CHOICE. If the circumstances are mine, even if they were beyond my control, the choice is mine. Even the choice to continue a pregnancy that most would consider damaging, the choice is still mine! No one can take that from me!
Once that thought occurred to me, I realized that, were I suffer an assault again, I really firmly believe that were I to become pregnant I’d continue the pregnancy and be able to raise that child. Of course, this is me thinking hypothetically and in hindsight. Were this to happen to me again (God willing, or what other Powers That Be, I hope it never does) I could very well feel differently. But that is still prochoice. The fact that I have the right to choose for myself, to choose for my life under any circumstances, is prochoice. And for an anti to tell a woman like me that I “should” choose abortion because it would be due to rape only further proves how antichoice they truly are. They don’t just want to oppose abortion. They want to oppose every choice a woman wants to make for herself.
Now please don’t mistake what I’ve said about myself as an indication that I would oppose abortion after a sexual assault for any woman. That is not at all the case. I would never impose what is good for me as an obligation for someone else. Hell, I wouldn’t oppose it for any woman under any circumstance. This simply me stating how being prochoice has put my life and my rights back in my hands, and in no one else’s. I have the right to choose what’s best for me, even if that’s choosing to keep a pregnancy that resulted from rape. Prochoice gave me back my mind, my body, and my right to decide in the best interest of me.
This Is What I Mean By Choice
So, true to my blog’s name, I am once again late. Granted, not nearly as late as usual, but late all the same. Let’s make up for lost time now, shall we?
So our douchey local antis decided to be their interpretation of clever yesterday and attempted to highjack Blog for Choice Day and rename it (yes, cleverly) “Ask Them What They Mean By Choice Day”. Wtfsrsly? The answer, cats and kittens, is the same as it’s always been: all legitimate choices regarding reproduction, parenting, and sex. Was that a scandalously reasonable answer? Just a little too reasonable for you guys? It must be as not a single one seems to have even remotely acknowledged that there we support the protection of all choices. You try to pass us off as supporting only abortion. There are a plethora of choices in one’s reproductive rights, and each and every one of them deserves protection and each and every one of the women (and sometimes men) deserves respect for the choices they make. Instead of dictating what choice means to me exactly, I’m going to tell you about some of the people I know and tell you of the choices they made. Maybe then (though doubtfully) you’ll finally grasp just how broad the spectrum of “choice” reaches.
A dear friend of mine (I’ll just call her K) is a paraplegic. She was born 2 ½ months early and has cerebral palsy as a result. K is an unapologetically fierce little thing, and I admire her to the ends of the earth for it. When K was 17 she learned she was pregnant. This wasn’t going to be a problem for K. She’s a firecracker. K was absolutely happy. Until her doctor started pushing for an abortion. Yes, K’s condition DID present some complications. But that wasn’t the doctor’s primary concern. He didn’t approve of her pregnancy because she was young and unmarried. Maybe it wasn’t an ideal situation… but it was none of his business. K promptly found another, better, doctor to entrust her reproductive health to and happily had her son. And then a daughter. And another. She’s an amazing, feisty parent. I fully supported her decision to have her children and her decision to tell that bullying, judgemental antichoice “doctor” where to shove it as she left his office that one last time.
My sister (“B”) has scoliosis. Not the mild kind that makes your shoulders a little crooked. When she was 14, she had a surgery that involved drilling steel rods into her spine to hold her back straight. As she got older, she should have gotten taller. The rods have been compressing her spine for 10 years now. B married at 17 and proceeded to pop out child upon child. By the time she reached her fourth pregnancy, her spine was in horrific shape. She admitted to me later that she had seriously considered terminating that pregnancy. Not only because she is disabled, but because she and her husband already had three children they were barely able to care for. She never told her husband about her thoughts. Interestingly, he never told her he’d had the same thoughts too. He was so afraid of making her feel pressured. B came to the decision on her own that she did want to have this child, despite being destitute and disabled. Now, in addition to the “awful little beasts” (as I affectionately call them) she already had, she now has The One I Call Nars (nickname of course) who can’t seem to say anything without sounding like he’s growling. B’s choice she made for her family. She’d have had my support either way because I knew she’d have decided out of love.
In my previous blog post, I told the story of my mom. I supported her decision to keep trying to have children. However, the rest of that story requires a blog all to itself. Btw does everyone I know get pregnant at 17?
One of my dearest friends (W) found herself pregnant at 18 (okay then, maybe not). After careful consideration and discussion with her mother, she decided that it would not be responsible of her to have a child then. W had an abortion. She says it was one of the hardest decisions she ever made. She also said she would never regret it. It was the right decision for her. W now has a son, a husband, and two stepsons. Her life is full and complete. Though I didn’t know her at the time, upon hearing her story, I knew I supported her because I knew the woman who came out of that decision.
My favourite cousin! A (as I’ll call her here) married at 19, when she was 7 months pregnant. She married hastily, she says in retrospect. When her daughter was about 6 months old, her husband went to prison. For four years she remained the devoted wife and mother, writing to her husband at least every week, and keeping the courts informed of his supportive family in hopes of his release. But after four years, things change. She reevaluated their relationship. She realized that their marriage was not a healthy one. She had an affair. Despite all her consistent use of contraception, A became pregnant by a man other than her incarcerated husband. She hid her pregnancy as long as she could (5 months is pretty good for a woman all of 4”9). A had obviously decided to keep her baby. When she finally had to confront everyone, she was bullied very much by her in-laws to seek an abortion. And she stood her ground. Now, that child is three years old. Her husband is out of prison, and they are now mutually seeking a divorce and remaining excellent friends. He accepts and loves this second child. She is, after all, the baby sister of his own daughter. A could have had an abortion and avoided all of the hostility (and even threats of violence) she encountered. She didn’t want to. It was her choice. She is very happy with the choice she made. And I am happy for her.
A childhood friend of mine impregnated his high school sweetheart. C opted to marry his sweetie, and they had a lovely son. They now have 8 sons. C and Wife run a foster home taking in particularly hard to manage boys. They are amazing parents to each and every one of them.
L, H, and Cl all lost custody of their children to the state for varying reasons. Cl simply decided she wouldn’t be a good parent at that time and gave her daughter for adoption. L and H had their children removed. After battling, both came to the conclusions that their children would have better lives with different families than theirs. They made the heart-wrenching decision to release their children into new homes.
T is a very dear schoolmate of mine. She is a lesbian who has chosen to be childless. Her girlfriend has a stepdaughter from a previous girlfriend. They all share in family activities, T being involved all the way. This step (-step?) daughter fills T’s life. Ln is another schoolmate. She is a successful cosmetologist and has a wonderful fiancé. She, too, has chosen to be childless. Both T and Ln love children, but simply prefer to not have any of their own.
When I was 20, I was in the midst of my first divorce. A child was dropped off with me. I was asked to watch her for “a few hours”. Her mother never returned. This child was the niece of my best friend, who was not in a position to care for her at the time. I didn’t know this little girl. She didn’t know me. We were both scared and didn’t know what to expect. So we just did what we could. We ate, watched movies, played games, washed dishes, chased my grandmother’s goats (we lived in a rural area, obviously). With the help of my best friend, we managed to get her enrolled in school. I got government assistance to help care for her (I was only a waitress at the time). Was I the best parent ever? Hell no. I entered counseling not only to deal with my divorce, but to learn what the hell I’m supposed to do with an 8 year old girl I’m suddenly caring for. I made so many mistakes. My relationship with my friend got very shaky due to conflicts over the girl. When I started dating again, my boyfriend’s parents pressured him to exit our relationship because they didn’t like the idea of him caring for someone else’s child (real winners huh?). He refused (we later split over different reasons). And I persisted. Eventually I did have to relinquish care for my girl. And after several years she made her way back to us all. She lives with her aunt now, still my best friend of many, many years. She still calls me Mommy.
And though I never have met him, and doubt I’ll ever have the chance, the story of Thomas Beaty I find amazing and inspiring. Thomas chose to go to amazing lengths and defy criticism and adversity to bring a child to his family. This man utilized the body that betrayed him at birth to fulfill the dreams of himself and his wife by carrying and birthing their baby. There were no boundaries that were going to keep this man and his wife from having the child they deserved.
Every one of those stories I just typed up portrays a choice that a woman (and in the cases of Thomas and C, a father) has had to make. Some chose to keep their children. Some chose not to have a child. Some chose to care for someone else’s children. Some chose to let their children go to other, better homes. Some chose keep trying to have children though they lost pregnancy after pregnancy. Some chose their right to go against the medical odds and continue their pregnancies. Some chose to swallow hard and fight the judgement cast on them for keeping their child. Some chose to dismiss the overwhelming criticism and chose to defy societies “rules” dictating who can and cannot have children.
Each case is unique. There may be others that are similar, that come close. But no two situations are identical. These women and men knew their lives better than anyone else. They decided in each case what was best for them and their families. They made these decisions as women, wives, and mothers, men, husbands, and fathers. They made these decisions carefully and delicately. Intelligently. They exercised their choices. I admire each of them for it. Even myself, through all of my mistakes and screw-ups as an unofficial foster mother. We all chose. We all supported each other’s decisions. I’m so proud of all of us.
So our douchey local antis decided to be their interpretation of clever yesterday and attempted to highjack Blog for Choice Day and rename it (yes, cleverly) “Ask Them What They Mean By Choice Day”. Wtfsrsly? The answer, cats and kittens, is the same as it’s always been: all legitimate choices regarding reproduction, parenting, and sex. Was that a scandalously reasonable answer? Just a little too reasonable for you guys? It must be as not a single one seems to have even remotely acknowledged that there we support the protection of all choices. You try to pass us off as supporting only abortion. There are a plethora of choices in one’s reproductive rights, and each and every one of them deserves protection and each and every one of the women (and sometimes men) deserves respect for the choices they make. Instead of dictating what choice means to me exactly, I’m going to tell you about some of the people I know and tell you of the choices they made. Maybe then (though doubtfully) you’ll finally grasp just how broad the spectrum of “choice” reaches.
A dear friend of mine (I’ll just call her K) is a paraplegic. She was born 2 ½ months early and has cerebral palsy as a result. K is an unapologetically fierce little thing, and I admire her to the ends of the earth for it. When K was 17 she learned she was pregnant. This wasn’t going to be a problem for K. She’s a firecracker. K was absolutely happy. Until her doctor started pushing for an abortion. Yes, K’s condition DID present some complications. But that wasn’t the doctor’s primary concern. He didn’t approve of her pregnancy because she was young and unmarried. Maybe it wasn’t an ideal situation… but it was none of his business. K promptly found another, better, doctor to entrust her reproductive health to and happily had her son. And then a daughter. And another. She’s an amazing, feisty parent. I fully supported her decision to have her children and her decision to tell that bullying, judgemental antichoice “doctor” where to shove it as she left his office that one last time.
My sister (“B”) has scoliosis. Not the mild kind that makes your shoulders a little crooked. When she was 14, she had a surgery that involved drilling steel rods into her spine to hold her back straight. As she got older, she should have gotten taller. The rods have been compressing her spine for 10 years now. B married at 17 and proceeded to pop out child upon child. By the time she reached her fourth pregnancy, her spine was in horrific shape. She admitted to me later that she had seriously considered terminating that pregnancy. Not only because she is disabled, but because she and her husband already had three children they were barely able to care for. She never told her husband about her thoughts. Interestingly, he never told her he’d had the same thoughts too. He was so afraid of making her feel pressured. B came to the decision on her own that she did want to have this child, despite being destitute and disabled. Now, in addition to the “awful little beasts” (as I affectionately call them) she already had, she now has The One I Call Nars (nickname of course) who can’t seem to say anything without sounding like he’s growling. B’s choice she made for her family. She’d have had my support either way because I knew she’d have decided out of love.
In my previous blog post, I told the story of my mom. I supported her decision to keep trying to have children. However, the rest of that story requires a blog all to itself. Btw does everyone I know get pregnant at 17?
One of my dearest friends (W) found herself pregnant at 18 (okay then, maybe not). After careful consideration and discussion with her mother, she decided that it would not be responsible of her to have a child then. W had an abortion. She says it was one of the hardest decisions she ever made. She also said she would never regret it. It was the right decision for her. W now has a son, a husband, and two stepsons. Her life is full and complete. Though I didn’t know her at the time, upon hearing her story, I knew I supported her because I knew the woman who came out of that decision.
My favourite cousin! A (as I’ll call her here) married at 19, when she was 7 months pregnant. She married hastily, she says in retrospect. When her daughter was about 6 months old, her husband went to prison. For four years she remained the devoted wife and mother, writing to her husband at least every week, and keeping the courts informed of his supportive family in hopes of his release. But after four years, things change. She reevaluated their relationship. She realized that their marriage was not a healthy one. She had an affair. Despite all her consistent use of contraception, A became pregnant by a man other than her incarcerated husband. She hid her pregnancy as long as she could (5 months is pretty good for a woman all of 4”9). A had obviously decided to keep her baby. When she finally had to confront everyone, she was bullied very much by her in-laws to seek an abortion. And she stood her ground. Now, that child is three years old. Her husband is out of prison, and they are now mutually seeking a divorce and remaining excellent friends. He accepts and loves this second child. She is, after all, the baby sister of his own daughter. A could have had an abortion and avoided all of the hostility (and even threats of violence) she encountered. She didn’t want to. It was her choice. She is very happy with the choice she made. And I am happy for her.
A childhood friend of mine impregnated his high school sweetheart. C opted to marry his sweetie, and they had a lovely son. They now have 8 sons. C and Wife run a foster home taking in particularly hard to manage boys. They are amazing parents to each and every one of them.
L, H, and Cl all lost custody of their children to the state for varying reasons. Cl simply decided she wouldn’t be a good parent at that time and gave her daughter for adoption. L and H had their children removed. After battling, both came to the conclusions that their children would have better lives with different families than theirs. They made the heart-wrenching decision to release their children into new homes.
T is a very dear schoolmate of mine. She is a lesbian who has chosen to be childless. Her girlfriend has a stepdaughter from a previous girlfriend. They all share in family activities, T being involved all the way. This step (-step?) daughter fills T’s life. Ln is another schoolmate. She is a successful cosmetologist and has a wonderful fiancé. She, too, has chosen to be childless. Both T and Ln love children, but simply prefer to not have any of their own.
When I was 20, I was in the midst of my first divorce. A child was dropped off with me. I was asked to watch her for “a few hours”. Her mother never returned. This child was the niece of my best friend, who was not in a position to care for her at the time. I didn’t know this little girl. She didn’t know me. We were both scared and didn’t know what to expect. So we just did what we could. We ate, watched movies, played games, washed dishes, chased my grandmother’s goats (we lived in a rural area, obviously). With the help of my best friend, we managed to get her enrolled in school. I got government assistance to help care for her (I was only a waitress at the time). Was I the best parent ever? Hell no. I entered counseling not only to deal with my divorce, but to learn what the hell I’m supposed to do with an 8 year old girl I’m suddenly caring for. I made so many mistakes. My relationship with my friend got very shaky due to conflicts over the girl. When I started dating again, my boyfriend’s parents pressured him to exit our relationship because they didn’t like the idea of him caring for someone else’s child (real winners huh?). He refused (we later split over different reasons). And I persisted. Eventually I did have to relinquish care for my girl. And after several years she made her way back to us all. She lives with her aunt now, still my best friend of many, many years. She still calls me Mommy.
And though I never have met him, and doubt I’ll ever have the chance, the story of Thomas Beaty I find amazing and inspiring. Thomas chose to go to amazing lengths and defy criticism and adversity to bring a child to his family. This man utilized the body that betrayed him at birth to fulfill the dreams of himself and his wife by carrying and birthing their baby. There were no boundaries that were going to keep this man and his wife from having the child they deserved.
Every one of those stories I just typed up portrays a choice that a woman (and in the cases of Thomas and C, a father) has had to make. Some chose to keep their children. Some chose not to have a child. Some chose to care for someone else’s children. Some chose to let their children go to other, better homes. Some chose keep trying to have children though they lost pregnancy after pregnancy. Some chose their right to go against the medical odds and continue their pregnancies. Some chose to swallow hard and fight the judgement cast on them for keeping their child. Some chose to dismiss the overwhelming criticism and chose to defy societies “rules” dictating who can and cannot have children.
Each case is unique. There may be others that are similar, that come close. But no two situations are identical. These women and men knew their lives better than anyone else. They decided in each case what was best for them and their families. They made these decisions as women, wives, and mothers, men, husbands, and fathers. They made these decisions carefully and delicately. Intelligently. They exercised their choices. I admire each of them for it. Even myself, through all of my mistakes and screw-ups as an unofficial foster mother. We all chose. We all supported each other’s decisions. I’m so proud of all of us.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
My Mother vs The Sanctity of Life
Now before anyone gets all uppity about this post, please bear in mind that this particular post wasn't even my idea. It was my mother's. During one of our rambling sessions about reproduction and choice, she made a very interesting point and asked me to use her as an example in a blog post. Here is my mom's story and how it pertains to abortion and the sanctity of life.
Right at thirty years ago, my seventeen year old mother learned that she was pregnant for the first time. The news was recieved with much joy and nervousness. She wasn't nervous for the reasons you might think that a seventeen year old would be in this situation: she had learned from her doctor months prior that she had a uterine disorder that would severely complicate her ability to carry a pregnancy to term. By severely, he meant that it would probably never happen. Mom, in her youthful vigor, decided to try. It turned out that the complications in this particular pregnancy would be trying to get me out of her (I proved quite stubborn even inutero). And on August 10th, 1981 I, in all my Leonine ferocity, was presented to the world.
She, and I, were lucky.
Mom went on to get pregnant many more times. "Many" being approximately 19 0r 20. Five of us lived. It seemed that Mommy had become a one-woman example of the study proving that 80% of pregnancies essentially terminate themselves (http://tinyurl.com/63p34wn).
The majority of antichoicers will look at women who repeatedly try to have children and suffer miscarriages with sympathy, stating that "at least they're TRYING to bring life into the world" or some such dismissiveness. But the simple facts are that my mother had prior knowledge of her (in)abilities when it came to carrying a pregnancy and still kept at it regardless off the numerous spontaneous abortions that she knew could (and would) take place.
I suppose my question to the antichoice is this: what makes my mother's case so much "better" than that of women who seek one or two abortions in their lives? She, herself, argues that her reproductive decisions cost more "lives" than the decisions of any woman who opted to terminate a pregnancy. This, cats and kittens, coming from a woman who has never had an induced abortion and miscarried 14-15 wanted pregnancies.
So in the arguement of "saving lives", would you have chosen to remove my mother's reproductive freedom as she ran such a high risk of spontaneous abortion? After all, if abortion "kills a child", by your own logic my mother is a serial killer.
No. I, of course, do not think my mother is a serial killer. And I'm certain that the antichoice are going to claim that they don't either, and they'll claim to "take such pity on this woman". But this is what their logic aims at: criminalizing and demonizing women for having reproductive control. The control women have to not be pregnant and, in the case of my mom, the control she had to keep getting pregnant.
Right at thirty years ago, my seventeen year old mother learned that she was pregnant for the first time. The news was recieved with much joy and nervousness. She wasn't nervous for the reasons you might think that a seventeen year old would be in this situation: she had learned from her doctor months prior that she had a uterine disorder that would severely complicate her ability to carry a pregnancy to term. By severely, he meant that it would probably never happen. Mom, in her youthful vigor, decided to try. It turned out that the complications in this particular pregnancy would be trying to get me out of her (I proved quite stubborn even inutero). And on August 10th, 1981 I, in all my Leonine ferocity, was presented to the world.
She, and I, were lucky.
Mom went on to get pregnant many more times. "Many" being approximately 19 0r 20. Five of us lived. It seemed that Mommy had become a one-woman example of the study proving that 80% of pregnancies essentially terminate themselves (http://tinyurl.com/63p34wn).
The majority of antichoicers will look at women who repeatedly try to have children and suffer miscarriages with sympathy, stating that "at least they're TRYING to bring life into the world" or some such dismissiveness. But the simple facts are that my mother had prior knowledge of her (in)abilities when it came to carrying a pregnancy and still kept at it regardless off the numerous spontaneous abortions that she knew could (and would) take place.
I suppose my question to the antichoice is this: what makes my mother's case so much "better" than that of women who seek one or two abortions in their lives? She, herself, argues that her reproductive decisions cost more "lives" than the decisions of any woman who opted to terminate a pregnancy. This, cats and kittens, coming from a woman who has never had an induced abortion and miscarried 14-15 wanted pregnancies.
So in the arguement of "saving lives", would you have chosen to remove my mother's reproductive freedom as she ran such a high risk of spontaneous abortion? After all, if abortion "kills a child", by your own logic my mother is a serial killer.
No. I, of course, do not think my mother is a serial killer. And I'm certain that the antichoice are going to claim that they don't either, and they'll claim to "take such pity on this woman". But this is what their logic aims at: criminalizing and demonizing women for having reproductive control. The control women have to not be pregnant and, in the case of my mom, the control she had to keep getting pregnant.
a slight adjustment
i've opted to change my blog as i can't seem to keep up with everyone else to something a bit more appropriate. i've moved all of my two posts to the new one, Late to the Party, which i hope you already knew because you're looking at it now!
happy prochoicing, peeps!
happy prochoicing, peeps!
Fun With Antichoice Inconsistencies
This response is really late to the party, most certainly, but what is it they say? Better late than never? Late it will just have to be.
In a June 10th post on her blog, Jill Stanek made a stunning revelation: feminists are selectively aborting future feminists. While many are finding it horrifying that feminists are so callously aborting the future of their own movement in such a manner, a few of us were left a little confused: when did we develop a prenatal test for feminism? Seriously. Here is Stanek's statement:
"Of course, Serena, the other reason 'there aren't enough of us out there making a difference' and why old feminists are having such trouble finding young feminists 'to pass the baton to' is because they've been aborted."
If we are going to take Stanek seriously (as I'm assuming she wants to be), we are going to work with the theory that women seeking abortions have the Genetic Feminism Analysis run on their fetus to make sure they are aborting the appropriate ones. I personally don't see how in the world this would be relevant, but obviously, if feminists are aborting all of their pre-feminists, they must have their reasons for weeding them out. I'd be interesting in knowing what those reasons are myself, seeing as how these deliberate aborting of future feminists is going to kill feminism of the future. And obviously Stanek is the only one capable of recognizing this.
So, since this is only now coming to light, I feel it's time for questions about this new procedure. Is this test specifically for feminism, or does it also cover other sociopolitical views like liberalism in general? Views on gay rights? Perhaps a woman could even find out how her baby will feel about the current mosque controversy! Also, is there a chance that feminism, liberalism, etc, can be heritable conditions? After all, many anti-choice and anti-equality parents birth and raise very equality minded progressive children. And vice-versa! The child of very openminded parents can grow up to succumb to the restrictive life of a conservative.
Enough of all of that. The real issue: how is our newfound Genetic Feminism Analysis going to affect abortion in our country? Again, Stanek's claim is that feminists are selectively aborting feminists. Seems counterproductive to me. So, how does it work for the antis?
Imagine if they could find out beforehand if their child would be prochoice. How many would break their own code to save face for their cause? How many antichoice activists would exercize their right to choose in such a situation? How many would seek an abortion from the very clinic they protest to ensure they did not have that gay child?
How often would they secretly utilize the very thing they oppose if they thought it would aid their cause? Or even just themselves?
It wouldn't be the first time:
http://tinyurl.com/ggswc
In a June 10th post on her blog, Jill Stanek made a stunning revelation: feminists are selectively aborting future feminists. While many are finding it horrifying that feminists are so callously aborting the future of their own movement in such a manner, a few of us were left a little confused: when did we develop a prenatal test for feminism? Seriously. Here is Stanek's statement:
"Of course, Serena, the other reason 'there aren't enough of us out there making a difference' and why old feminists are having such trouble finding young feminists 'to pass the baton to' is because they've been aborted."
If we are going to take Stanek seriously (as I'm assuming she wants to be), we are going to work with the theory that women seeking abortions have the Genetic Feminism Analysis run on their fetus to make sure they are aborting the appropriate ones. I personally don't see how in the world this would be relevant, but obviously, if feminists are aborting all of their pre-feminists, they must have their reasons for weeding them out. I'd be interesting in knowing what those reasons are myself, seeing as how these deliberate aborting of future feminists is going to kill feminism of the future. And obviously Stanek is the only one capable of recognizing this.
So, since this is only now coming to light, I feel it's time for questions about this new procedure. Is this test specifically for feminism, or does it also cover other sociopolitical views like liberalism in general? Views on gay rights? Perhaps a woman could even find out how her baby will feel about the current mosque controversy! Also, is there a chance that feminism, liberalism, etc, can be heritable conditions? After all, many anti-choice and anti-equality parents birth and raise very equality minded progressive children. And vice-versa! The child of very openminded parents can grow up to succumb to the restrictive life of a conservative.
Enough of all of that. The real issue: how is our newfound Genetic Feminism Analysis going to affect abortion in our country? Again, Stanek's claim is that feminists are selectively aborting feminists. Seems counterproductive to me. So, how does it work for the antis?
Imagine if they could find out beforehand if their child would be prochoice. How many would break their own code to save face for their cause? How many antichoice activists would exercize their right to choose in such a situation? How many would seek an abortion from the very clinic they protest to ensure they did not have that gay child?
How often would they secretly utilize the very thing they oppose if they thought it would aid their cause? Or even just themselves?
It wouldn't be the first time:
http://tinyurl.com/ggswc
Clarification
There's some things I feel certain people in my life need to know. Many seem to be confused by my seemingly sudden switch from prolife to prochoice. They are wondering why, especially since most are antichoice or situationists at the most lax. I feel it's time to clarify.
I am prochoice:
-Because you are diabetic, you have MS, you have any assortment of problems that may threaten your wellbeing.
-Because you are homeless.
-Because you are a drug addict.
-Because you didn't ask to be raped.
-Because you did use precautions. Those precautions failed you at a critical time in your life.
-Because one day your daughter will secretly seek an abortion.
-Because no matter how much I or anyone else may disagree with your decision, I always want you HERE. With me. NO MATTER WHAT.
-Because you are only 14 and how you got pregnant is irrelevant. You clearly can't care for a child.
-Because children are the most amazing beings in the world and the most deserving individuals life have to offer. They are not consequences. They are not punishments. They are not weapons.
-Because our adoption and foster systems have been reduced to a joke.
-Because 43% of women choose to end their pregnancies. That's almost every other woman you or I know.
-Because prior to it being legal, 1 in 3 women who sought abortion died due to botched procedures.
-Because, when you take the two previous facts into consideration, 1 in 5-6 women in my life would be dead due to illegal procedures if abortion were not legal and safe.
-Because you have children you are already struggling to care for.
-Because you just found out that you have a heritable disorder that you do not want to force your child to suffer through as you now have to.
-Because I never want you to find out your child is dead because they were seeking an abortion.
-Because it's your freshman year in college and you had a few lapses in judgement due to all the excitement. And you still want to graduate.
-Because I wouldn't want someone telling me I have to end my pregnancy. Therefore I will not tell anyone they can't.
-Because you were already 4 months along when you found out and you had been partying frequently.
-Because you are trying to escape an abusive partner.
-Because I want you in my life.
But most of all, I am prochoice because I love you. I don't care who you are or what you've done. Someone's life is worthwhile and bearable because of you. Someone is loved because of you. And that someone should never have to suffer losing you over abortion.
I am prochoice:
-Because you are diabetic, you have MS, you have any assortment of problems that may threaten your wellbeing.
-Because you are homeless.
-Because you are a drug addict.
-Because you didn't ask to be raped.
-Because you did use precautions. Those precautions failed you at a critical time in your life.
-Because one day your daughter will secretly seek an abortion.
-Because no matter how much I or anyone else may disagree with your decision, I always want you HERE. With me. NO MATTER WHAT.
-Because you are only 14 and how you got pregnant is irrelevant. You clearly can't care for a child.
-Because children are the most amazing beings in the world and the most deserving individuals life have to offer. They are not consequences. They are not punishments. They are not weapons.
-Because our adoption and foster systems have been reduced to a joke.
-Because 43% of women choose to end their pregnancies. That's almost every other woman you or I know.
-Because prior to it being legal, 1 in 3 women who sought abortion died due to botched procedures.
-Because, when you take the two previous facts into consideration, 1 in 5-6 women in my life would be dead due to illegal procedures if abortion were not legal and safe.
-Because you have children you are already struggling to care for.
-Because you just found out that you have a heritable disorder that you do not want to force your child to suffer through as you now have to.
-Because I never want you to find out your child is dead because they were seeking an abortion.
-Because it's your freshman year in college and you had a few lapses in judgement due to all the excitement. And you still want to graduate.
-Because I wouldn't want someone telling me I have to end my pregnancy. Therefore I will not tell anyone they can't.
-Because you were already 4 months along when you found out and you had been partying frequently.
-Because you are trying to escape an abusive partner.
-Because I want you in my life.
But most of all, I am prochoice because I love you. I don't care who you are or what you've done. Someone's life is worthwhile and bearable because of you. Someone is loved because of you. And that someone should never have to suffer losing you over abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)