rant alert!
9 Mar 2006 03:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenxyzcannonballSo I was walking back from chem lab and I saw the anti-choice "Abortion is genocide" display, complete with pictures of aborted fetuses. What a load of bullshit. I disagree with their display as much as I do their position. Allow me to enumerate why (especially since I should be studying right now):
Webster's Dictionary defines "genocide" as the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group. Abortion, because it is not associated with any race or nation, therefore cannot be genocide, according to the definition of that term. Comparing a woman's choice not to bring a baby into the world to horrific events such as the Holocaust or the Rwanda's Tutsi massacres is demeaning to the survivors of those events.
Displaying graphic picture in an open area is not conducive to a "family friendly" atmosphere. No one wants to be forced into viewing these graphic pictures. Little children who see these images will either: not understand and may ask their parents/guardians about it, which may bring about sex education much sooner than the parents felt ready to discuss it; or if they already understand may be aghast at the gory pictures-not because they are of "beings with rights" (which the law does not even give children the right to decide where they want to live in custody cases or in the case of foster homes) but because the pictures are bloody and are intentionally chosen for shock value. Isn't that a heartwarming thing, to give little Sue nightmares about blood and guts.
Proponents of anti-abortion/anti-choice (who like to call themselves pro-life because it sounds better) claim that women who become pregnant should be able to deal with the responsibilities of their choices. They are. Abortion is a choice. The women who choose this don't want to bring their child into the world for some reason. Perhaps they feel that they would not make good parents and that there are so many children in orphanages and foster homes who already need a home. Maybe they feel that the child would never have any quality of life due to their own previous mistakes (disease, drugs), or perhaps the pregnancy is the result of a forced encounter that the woman would not ever have chosen. There exists the possibility that, for them, to attempt to bring a life in to the world would very likely destroy theirs-or even kill them.
For those who say women should be celibate if they don't want children, I have to inquire if they themselves remained celibate until marriage. If this position is based on biblical reasoning, I ask them to read some of the passages in context of the times. Mary, Jesus's mother, would have been probably 15 at the time of the annunciation. Girls generally married soon after their menstrual cycles began, which started later than most girls do today (today's median age of menarche is about 13). So theoretically by the time most girls were in a position to be physically attractive and attracted, they would already be married. If a married couple decided (for whatever reason) that they would not be parents, they're allowed to have intercourse-that's one of the prerogatives of marriage. The Bible doesn't say that God will punish couples who don't have children, whether by choice or by nature. If that is the decision they have made, they should be allowed to dictate what occurs in their household. (Additionally, there was an article on AOL news that showed that in states that required parental notification in the event of a minor's pregnancy, the parents actually encouraged their daughters to have an abortion, even when the daughters were uncertain about having the procedure. So much for preventing abortions.)
Since the passing of Roe v. Wade, there have been less abortions, and less botched (illegal) abortions. Abortion itself is not a "newfangled liberal hypocrite" invention; it has been around hundreds of years. Medieval women would use concoctions of tansy to abort a fetus, and victorian prostitutes would use a harsh alum solution as a douche to prevent pregnancy. If women want to terminate their pregnancy, they're going to do so. It's in the best interest of the woman and the country to allow her to have an abortion in a sanitary environment by a trained professional, instead of a back alley with a coat hanger. It is demeaning to tell women they are nothing more than breeding machines whose own feelings are irrelevant because the government (read: uber-conservatives) thinks a parasitic piece of tissue is more important than a living human being. As this issue is largely trumpeted by the "moral right", I feel that I, as an American citizen, should not be forced to follow the morals of the party in power's religion. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from choosing a religion; therefore, the government shouldn't be allowed to impose morals of a religion on its citizens, insomuch as the citizens' actions are not harmful to other living people and do not destroy public order. I don't think of a fetus, or a zygote, or an embryo, as a person. After all, pregnant women say "I'm going to have a baby" not "I have a baby". So a baby doesn't exist until it is born by coming out of a woman's body. If it isn't a baby and therefore a person, it has no rights to any sort of protection, any more than a uterine tumor has.
Also, pregnancy isn't easy. It is difficult and can cause changes that never reverse themselves (such as diabetes and hypertension). Anyone who feels that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions should have to assume all the pains of the pregnancy they want to continue. Once the baby is delivered, there's no guarantee that the government will help the mother to provide for it. Our school system is one of the worst among all industrialized nations, minimum wage can't support a mother and child, childcare is expensive, and there are many children who wait in orphanages or foster homes because they were abandoned or their mother is unable to care for them. If people are going to advocate against abortion, then they should also be advocating for more children and family services, especially for single mothers. But they don't.
I'd like to extend the invitation to all anti-abortion activists to now remove their heads from between women's legs and to find a new cause to champion. How about SUVs that pose a threat to other, living, people?
Webster's Dictionary defines "genocide" as the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group. Abortion, because it is not associated with any race or nation, therefore cannot be genocide, according to the definition of that term. Comparing a woman's choice not to bring a baby into the world to horrific events such as the Holocaust or the Rwanda's Tutsi massacres is demeaning to the survivors of those events.
Displaying graphic picture in an open area is not conducive to a "family friendly" atmosphere. No one wants to be forced into viewing these graphic pictures. Little children who see these images will either: not understand and may ask their parents/guardians about it, which may bring about sex education much sooner than the parents felt ready to discuss it; or if they already understand may be aghast at the gory pictures-not because they are of "beings with rights" (which the law does not even give children the right to decide where they want to live in custody cases or in the case of foster homes) but because the pictures are bloody and are intentionally chosen for shock value. Isn't that a heartwarming thing, to give little Sue nightmares about blood and guts.
Proponents of anti-abortion/anti-choice (who like to call themselves pro-life because it sounds better) claim that women who become pregnant should be able to deal with the responsibilities of their choices. They are. Abortion is a choice. The women who choose this don't want to bring their child into the world for some reason. Perhaps they feel that they would not make good parents and that there are so many children in orphanages and foster homes who already need a home. Maybe they feel that the child would never have any quality of life due to their own previous mistakes (disease, drugs), or perhaps the pregnancy is the result of a forced encounter that the woman would not ever have chosen. There exists the possibility that, for them, to attempt to bring a life in to the world would very likely destroy theirs-or even kill them.
For those who say women should be celibate if they don't want children, I have to inquire if they themselves remained celibate until marriage. If this position is based on biblical reasoning, I ask them to read some of the passages in context of the times. Mary, Jesus's mother, would have been probably 15 at the time of the annunciation. Girls generally married soon after their menstrual cycles began, which started later than most girls do today (today's median age of menarche is about 13). So theoretically by the time most girls were in a position to be physically attractive and attracted, they would already be married. If a married couple decided (for whatever reason) that they would not be parents, they're allowed to have intercourse-that's one of the prerogatives of marriage. The Bible doesn't say that God will punish couples who don't have children, whether by choice or by nature. If that is the decision they have made, they should be allowed to dictate what occurs in their household. (Additionally, there was an article on AOL news that showed that in states that required parental notification in the event of a minor's pregnancy, the parents actually encouraged their daughters to have an abortion, even when the daughters were uncertain about having the procedure. So much for preventing abortions.)
Since the passing of Roe v. Wade, there have been less abortions, and less botched (illegal) abortions. Abortion itself is not a "newfangled liberal hypocrite" invention; it has been around hundreds of years. Medieval women would use concoctions of tansy to abort a fetus, and victorian prostitutes would use a harsh alum solution as a douche to prevent pregnancy. If women want to terminate their pregnancy, they're going to do so. It's in the best interest of the woman and the country to allow her to have an abortion in a sanitary environment by a trained professional, instead of a back alley with a coat hanger. It is demeaning to tell women they are nothing more than breeding machines whose own feelings are irrelevant because the government (read: uber-conservatives) thinks a parasitic piece of tissue is more important than a living human being. As this issue is largely trumpeted by the "moral right", I feel that I, as an American citizen, should not be forced to follow the morals of the party in power's religion. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from choosing a religion; therefore, the government shouldn't be allowed to impose morals of a religion on its citizens, insomuch as the citizens' actions are not harmful to other living people and do not destroy public order. I don't think of a fetus, or a zygote, or an embryo, as a person. After all, pregnant women say "I'm going to have a baby" not "I have a baby". So a baby doesn't exist until it is born by coming out of a woman's body. If it isn't a baby and therefore a person, it has no rights to any sort of protection, any more than a uterine tumor has.
Also, pregnancy isn't easy. It is difficult and can cause changes that never reverse themselves (such as diabetes and hypertension). Anyone who feels that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions should have to assume all the pains of the pregnancy they want to continue. Once the baby is delivered, there's no guarantee that the government will help the mother to provide for it. Our school system is one of the worst among all industrialized nations, minimum wage can't support a mother and child, childcare is expensive, and there are many children who wait in orphanages or foster homes because they were abandoned or their mother is unable to care for them. If people are going to advocate against abortion, then they should also be advocating for more children and family services, especially for single mothers. But they don't.
I'd like to extend the invitation to all anti-abortion activists to now remove their heads from between women's legs and to find a new cause to champion. How about SUVs that pose a threat to other, living, people?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 09:57 pm (UTC)love you babe.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 07:01 am (UTC)The ironic part is that the people who would use governmental power to take away the right to abortion are the same people who would discourage the use of governmental power to deal with the consequences of denying that right.
Finally, not to attack any group in particular, but here's a bit of food for thought: there are programs of actual, non-metaphorical genocide occurring as we speak in Africa and in other parts of the world that we're not even all that well informed about. Imagine if the pro-life groups were spending their money to help with that, instead of paying for a plane to circle a university campus all day or to send mailers with pictures of dissected fetuses. I wonder what the difference in lives saved would be.