William, you're, um... "talents" are truly wasted here. Clearly I am no match for you with my heathen beliefs and practices and utter inability to cherry-pick the same passages that you seem to think are the important ones. So I'll leave it to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, to talk about abortion, and you can take up you're, um.... "sincerely held religious beliefs" with her.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
How Pro-Lifers are killing women
Hey, William.... Remember when you said that there weren't any women having their health harmed by the Right's constant attacks on Abortion Rights?
Well, FUCK YOU.
--------------------------------------------------
Globally, only a few countries have seen a rise in the rate of maternal deaths in recent years. Those include Afghanistan, El Salvador, South Sudan and the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------
Well done, Republicans, I hope you're happy. First you destroyed the traditional family unit, and now you're actually killing women.
How much longer do we have to suffer these psychopaths, America? How long before more of you start to realize what I've been saying all along: Right-Wing Conservative Republicans only come in two flavors : EVIL and STUPID. One's lying and the other's buying.
How much more damage must we let them do? How many more lives will we let them destroy?
Well, FUCK YOU.
“Today’s mothers are twice as likely to die of pregnancy- or childbirth-related causes than their mothers were. There is no reason, given our vast resources, knowledge and technology, why we should be going backwards in this area.” – Laura Gilkey, coordinator of The Safe Motherhood Quilt Project, a nonprofit based in Sarasota, Fla.
Globally, only a few countries have seen a rise in the rate of maternal deaths in recent years. Those include Afghanistan, El Salvador, South Sudan and the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------
Well done, Republicans, I hope you're happy. First you destroyed the traditional family unit, and now you're actually killing women.
How much longer do we have to suffer these psychopaths, America? How long before more of you start to realize what I've been saying all along: Right-Wing Conservative Republicans only come in two flavors : EVIL and STUPID. One's lying and the other's buying.
How much more damage must we let them do? How many more lives will we let them destroy?
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
How Pro-Life groups are destroying the "Traditional Family"
So, it turns out that the single biggest indicator of the rate of unwed mothers in a given community is not poverty, or welfare, or declining morals, or allowing gay marriage, and certainly no being LIBERAL. In fact it's quite the opposite: Being Pro-Life has the strongest positive correlation to un-Wed mothers, and the decline of the "traditional family."
Suck on that one, Right Wing hypocrites!
EDIT: Had to tack another one. Abortion IS good, actually, and necessary to the very idea of women's equality.
EDIT: Had to tack another one. Abortion IS good, actually, and necessary to the very idea of women's equality.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
The War on Women
A few posts back, Anonymous (dude, seriously, please: Pick a fucking name if you're going to be a regular commenter. If anyone else decides to post anonymously, it's going to confuse the hell out of everyone) told me that there was no Rebublican War on Women. That it was as fictitious as the Liberals' War on Christmas. Well, I suppose he's half right.
Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...
The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:
WOW, right?
Also curious is this...
Yeah, there's no War on Women here!
As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:
Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.
And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud." A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.
You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.
----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight: 207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.
Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...
The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:
WOW, right?
Also curious is this...
Yeah, there's no War on Women here!
As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:
Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.
And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud." A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.
You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.
----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight: 207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
On Hypocrisy...
A while back, in one of his comments, William accused me of two things.
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt. Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested. So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already. So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.
He also accused me of HYPOCRISY. See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people. No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People. And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.
OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot. I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy. I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent. And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they? And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.
So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?
Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy. They couldn't properly identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass. Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.
But what about me?
Well... IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.
And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.
Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE! Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.
But... of course that's completely idiotic.
The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy. Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...
Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE." His misogynistic vitriol continued today.
Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"
Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?" (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)
Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)
So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.
Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke. And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that. Shame on me? Shame on my hypocrisy?
Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!
READ THOSE. LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE. And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!
I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.
All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)
He said I didn't honestly answer his [goofy, IMHO] question about aborting homosexuals, and that he really wanted to know how I felt. Well... that's odd, seeing as how I've written extensively on both topics over the past three years, and have permanent tabs at the top of the page on both Abortion and LGBT Issues, giving a quick rundown of my feelings on both of these matters, if anyone is interested. So I don't know if this accusation comes from either laziness or illiteracy, but there is little more I can say about Abortion or Gay Rights at this point that I haven't said a dozen times already. So... RTFB, if you honestly can't understand the answer I gave you.
He also accused me of HYPOCRISY. See... I guess I say a lot of BAD THINGS about people that I think are bad people. No.. .I take that back. State it more honestly, I should say that I take GREAT PRIDE in the things I say about VILE, BIGOTED, GREEDY, DISHONEST People. And by some wild universal coincidence, it seems that 90-some percent of these people are Conservative, or Right-Wing, Public Figures.
OMFG! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
Now I get the hypocrisy accusation a lot. I do. And I invite it.I really do. Because in truth, I'm fairly outspoken about the fact that there is scarcely a vice I can't tolerate, save for hypocrisy. I loathe hypocrisy above all else. I could even forgive a murder, and yet happily kill the accused myself, should he walk out off death row on a technicality and then go on to become an agressive death penalty proponent and fourth ammendment opponent. And so: Should anyone ever manage to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy... WELL, HEY... They've WON, haven't they? And typically lacking any actual evidence to support their arguments, that remains the ONE WAY, the one SUREFIRE way, that a Conservative could actually BEAT ME in an argument.
So I'm not shy about the fact that I get that. A LOT. The problem is?
Conservatives don't understand the first fucking thing about hypocrisy. They couldn't properly identify hypocrisy if it turned itself into a snake and bit them in the ass. Which is probably why their more prominent spokespeople are all such raving, intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITES.
But what about me?
Well... IF I UNDERSTAND his accusation correctly - and I'm sure he'll need no encouragement to clarify things if I'm missing something - it appears that it is hypocritical of me to say bad things about people who I believe are bad because they say bad things about people.
And, yeah, I suppose that can look like hypocrisy... if you're an idiot.
Because to follow that logic? You can never judge ANYONE! Suddenly, magically, ANYTHING GOES! Someone could go around calling every Black person he saw a Nigger right to their face, and no one could say that this guy was being an ignorant racist, jackass, because THAT... would be hypocritical.
But... of course that's completely idiotic.
The fact is? That there is no hypocrisy in calling a vile person, a vile person. When they say vile things about otehr people, you do not become a vile person in pointing out that they are a vile person! DUH! One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to avoid hypocrisy. Now... I'll give you a BE-YOU-TIFUL example of what I'm talking about...
Starting yesterday, and continue on to today, Rush Limbaugh actually had the audacity to refer to a Law Student, who was advocating up for women's health care a "SLUT" and a "PROSTITUTE." His misogynistic vitriol continued today.
Limbaugh: "I Will Buy All Of The Women At Georgetown University As Much Aspirin To Put Between Their Knees As They Want"
Limbaugh Lectures Georgetown Student: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?"
Limbaugh Demands Women With Contraceptive Coverage Post Sex Videos Online "So We Can All Watch"
Limbaugh To Sandra Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?" (holy fucking crap!)
Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk" (OMFG!)
Limbaugh: Five Dollars For A Month Of Birth Control? "That Makes PMS Almost Worth It" (Really, Rush? Really?)
So... here's my answer: Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic SCUMBAG.
Now... let recap: Limbaugh said some mean things about Sandra Fluke. And I said some mean things about Rush Limbaugh for doing that. Shame on me? Shame on my hypocrisy?
Did you have a fucking brain tumor for breakfast?!
READ THOSE. LISTEN TO THOSE. EVERY ONE. And you know what? If you do that and DON'T come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag? Then, sir or madame, YOU are a vile, despicable, chauvinistic, misogynistic scumbag!
I and I will only be revealed as a hypocrite the day I post such vile, misogynistic trash on this blog. (Or chastise people over either foul language or typos.) Well, sir, you will be waiting alongside Adlai Stevenson until hell freezes over, because I am not a misogynist, and I am no hypocrite.
All I can say is that I hope Rush's fourth wife was listening. This is who you married sweetheart. I hope it will be worth it to you. (That's NOT mysoginy, BTW. I don't think she's a bad person. I'm merely pointing out her abysmal taste in men.)
Monday, November 14, 2011
Some unfiltered opinion about abortion
I've been away for a while, so this is going to cover a lot of stuff. Bear with though, me because it all comes back to the 'pro-contraception' / 'abortion is a complex issue' theme that I wanted to pick up from the Sanger post.
First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters. And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome. While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened. And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in. They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi. And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats. And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season. Nice going, Republicans! I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this. Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is. Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke. Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.
Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.
As far as abortion goes... IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE. Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE. That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.
And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.
(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)
Now... JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position. And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing. (Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that! I've gotten that! DW has gotten that! And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!
Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general. IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop! They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede. They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell. In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream. So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say. And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid. They're idiots, yeah. But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.
Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here. This is what I would propose:
1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.
2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened. And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)
3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.
An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester. Partial Birth Abortion? Ugh. COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed. I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example. And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)
And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool. I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof. Short version?
Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life. (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)
And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues. You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah. I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...
HEY, ASSHOLE: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AFFECT AND DICTATE THE BEHAVIOR OF EXACTLY ONE PERSON: YOU! AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION PROTECTS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION, OR INDEED ANY RELIGION THAT I DON'T BELONG, OR DO BELONG TO YET CHOOSE TO IGNORE. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY FORM OF CONTRACEPTION: DON'T USE IT, AND DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO IS! PERIOD. END OF STORY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL. And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.
(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)
But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?
And I think there is. And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources. That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter. I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me. It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior. I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it. But you know what? If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds. My blood seriously boils that much over this.
And I'm not saying that to scare you. (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it. As far as I am concerned:
Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women.
You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel. And I think I can explain why.
I'm a feminist.
Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion. But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.
A recent example of what I'm talking about...
Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business. These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect. Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women. (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.) (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married? It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL) And believe me when I say that there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked. Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it. (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL) And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00. Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup. Tee-Shirt with holes in it. The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar. Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types. Do you know what my first (and only) thought was?
That's it. That was my only opinion. And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting. And when she left? One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!" And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me. They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women. And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well. But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women. Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all. At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty. That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE. Which... Just isn't all that important to me.
I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive. But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!
ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)
And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception. Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):
1) The first was the invention of firearms. This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level. When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage. But two people with guns? Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend! And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others. Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man. No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.
(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)
2) The second is women's suffrage. And that one's pretty obvious. Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right. So that's #2.
And #3...?
3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion. Because even given the first two? There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy. When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed. (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.) But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!) And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption. Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.
Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven. Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have. So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.
Now... Getting back to abortion. JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place. [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here. Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:
1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools. This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE. It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail. And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles. This would, of course, be presented as a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)
2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex. Period. Just ask Sarah Palin. Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.
3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION. This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself! And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child. Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make. And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT! We'll help you!" Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you. Fuck that. Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society! If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right! What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage. That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant. S/He'll go to a good home. (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!) But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.
4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS. I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood. But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion. So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens? Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion. You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity. This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.
INFORMATION. ACCESS. ALTERNATIVES. and SUPPORT.
Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!
First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters. And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome. While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened. And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in. They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi. And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats. And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season. Nice going, Republicans! I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this. Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is. Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke. Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.
Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.
As far as abortion goes... IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE. Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE. That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.
And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.
(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)
Now... JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position. And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing. (Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that! I've gotten that! DW has gotten that! And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!
Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general. IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop! They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede. They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell. In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream. So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say. And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid. They're idiots, yeah. But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.
Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here. This is what I would propose:
1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.
2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened. And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)
3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.
An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester. Partial Birth Abortion? Ugh. COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed. I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example. And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)
And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool. I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof. Short version?
Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life. (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)
And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues. You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah. I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...
HEY, ASSHOLE: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AFFECT AND DICTATE THE BEHAVIOR OF EXACTLY ONE PERSON: YOU! AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION PROTECTS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION, OR INDEED ANY RELIGION THAT I DON'T BELONG, OR DO BELONG TO YET CHOOSE TO IGNORE. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY FORM OF CONTRACEPTION: DON'T USE IT, AND DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO IS! PERIOD. END OF STORY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL. And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.
(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)
But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?
And I think there is. And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources. That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter. I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me. It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior. I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it. But you know what? If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds. My blood seriously boils that much over this.
And I'm not saying that to scare you. (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it. As far as I am concerned:
Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women.
You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel. And I think I can explain why.
I'm a feminist.
Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion. But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.
A recent example of what I'm talking about...
Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business. These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect. Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women. (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.) (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married? It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL) And believe me when I say that there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked. Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it. (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL) And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00. Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup. Tee-Shirt with holes in it. The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar. Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types. Do you know what my first (and only) thought was?
Of all the women in that bar that night - she looked by far to be the most interesting.
That's it. That was my only opinion. And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting. And when she left? One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!" And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me. They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women. And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well. But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women. Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all. At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty. That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE. Which... Just isn't all that important to me.
I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive. But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!
ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)
And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception. Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):
1) The first was the invention of firearms. This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level. When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage. But two people with guns? Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend! And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others. Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man. No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.
(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)
2) The second is women's suffrage. And that one's pretty obvious. Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right. So that's #2.
And #3...?
3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion. Because even given the first two? There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy. When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed. (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.) But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!) And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption. Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.
Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven. Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have. So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.
Now... Getting back to abortion. JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place. [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here. Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:
1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools. This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE. It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail. And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles. This would, of course, be presented as a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)
2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex. Period. Just ask Sarah Palin. Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.
3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION. This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself! And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child. Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make. And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT! We'll help you!" Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you. Fuck that. Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society! If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right! What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage. That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant. S/He'll go to a good home. (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!) But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.
4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS. I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood. But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion. So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens? Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion. You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity. This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.
INFORMATION. ACCESS. ALTERNATIVES. and SUPPORT.
Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
If you took Human Sexuality in college, that line may sound familiar to you.
I want to clarify a small part of my last post. As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom." And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion." Well... yes and no. Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about. And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children. Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)
No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood. More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me. THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:
Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.
The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.
Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.
After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"
"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.
But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."
"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."
"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"
The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."
Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"
These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment. This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000). And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.
Think about that. So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it! (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
That was their answer. That was society's answer.
And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion. Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?
Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH! (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...
The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.
Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"
So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.
Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.
And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:
Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.
Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
Do you see what's been written on the back of it?
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)
----------------------------------------------
*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:
So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!
More on Margret Sanger. More. And more.
I want to clarify a small part of my last post. As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom." And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion." Well... yes and no. Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about. And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children. Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)
No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood. More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me. THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:
Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.
The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.
Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.
After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"
"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.
But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."
"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."
"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"
The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."
Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"
These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment. This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000). And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.
Think about that. So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it! (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
That was their answer. That was society's answer.
And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion. Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?
Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH! (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)
Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...
The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.
Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"
So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.
Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.
And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:
Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.
Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!
Do you see what's been written on the back of it?
"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."
(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)
----------------------------------------------
*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:
...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in An Autobiography, 1938
So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!
More on Margret Sanger. More. And more.
Monday, January 18, 2010
THIS is not THAT, Part One: Contraception is not Abortion!
Interesting discussion on MMFA today. And unless you're a truly brainwashed right-winger, I can't imagine how ANYONE could have a hard time admitting that Coakley's words were cleary being taken out of context, to the point where the meaning of her whole message has been dramatically altered. But RightOn kept right on rolling, demonstrating that when it comes to partisan politics ENGLISH is apparently not his native tongue. (Reading Comprehension FAIL, though I still enjoyed the debate. He's one of the guys that I know I can hit hard, because I know he'll come back at me just as hard. That's what makes it so worthwhile! I really had a blast today! LOL) And should you have any doubts about MY interpretation of her words, here's FACT CHECK's take on it. From that, it's pretty clear to me who's doing the lying, and who's merely making partisan points that are, in fact, TRUE in thier ads! And Coakley'd ad, addressing Brown's absurd health care ammendment, alone might have been worth posting about, but Pongowinston TWICE refered us (in the same trhead) to THIS NONSENSE.
Now... first let me handle that laughably hypocritical blog post. (1) Only Right-Wing morons think that voting for a bill means that you whole-heartedly support every single aspect of that bill. (And even THEN, only when it serves their purpose too!) So it's utter nonsense to think that by supporting the health care bill in general, that some how means she anti-abortion, becuase of the one ammendment in their in a vain attempt to pccify REPUBLICANS. Which brings me to (2) We all know who the "Pro-Life" (anti-Choice) party is, and who that ammendment is in there for. So don't go trying to make the Dem's look bad by saying their anti-abortion, even in cases of rape. They aren't anti-abortion at all, ins't that your lot's usual narritive? And seriously - since when did conservatives start caring about a woman's access to abortion services anyway? But even putting the author's hypocritical accusations aside, the two ammendments are a false comaprison anyway.
Brown's, which would allow providers to opt out of emergency contraception on religious grounds, is not the same thing as what's in the bill that Coakley supports, which would allow providers to refuse to perform abortions on religous or moral grounds. (And I love how he says that "even nmore broad" as if only religious people have the right to have principles! Typical RW, Christian arrogance.) But after reading all this, I thought I'd say a bit about how I see the abortion vs. emergency contraception argument.
I'm actually OK with the ammendment that Coakley can live with, and utterly despise the one Brown proposed.
With regards to abortion, I am 100% OK with a Doctor or other health care provider refusing to perform abortions, in all cases that don't save the life of the Mother. And Religion does not need to rear it's ugly, horned head in order for this to make sense. The principle here is very simple: The OB need merely see both mother and baby/fetus as his patients for his hypocratic oath to prevent him from doing harm to either. I will not put an instrument in someone's hand and legally compel them to do soemthing they feel is immoral. I will never "force their hand." What's more, I can support it on practical grounds, because abortions that are not life saving, very rarely (never?) need to be done RIGHT NOW. A given person usually has options other than the just the one doctor, and if they don't at the time, they still have some time to find them.
The situation is entirely different with emergency contrception. In order for this to be effective, it MUST be given within a specific time window. And the clock is ticking. If you're in a rural area, and the next hospital is a few towns away... THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. Niether is waiting until the next day. Now... let's say the Nurses, Doctors, etc... are all strict Catholics. Well... the church says. "No contraception." So... what does that mean for them? IT MEANS THAT IF THEY ARE RAPED AND FACING A FORCED PREGNANCY THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY!!! It certainly DOES NOT give them the right to deny legal and accepted medical care to a rape victim who either INS'T Catholic, or decides (as 99% of them do do) "Screw the church, I'm not having my rapists baby!" And refusing to give someone else emergency contraception is tantamount to raping them all over again. Worse actually, as it forces them to actually BEAR THE CHILD of their attacker. It's nothing more than a despicable forcing of THEIR RIDICULOUS SUPERSTITIONS onto someone else. Your religions binds YOUR OWN ACTIONS only. It does not bind those of anyone else.
And I feel every bit as strongly about pharmacicsts who refuse to fill birth control pill scripts. Putting aside that estrogen is used for far more than just contraception, this again is nothing more than them telling you how to live. Them forcing their values on YOU. If THEY don't believe in contraception, then it is on them not to practice it. They have no say in what YOU DO. YOUR LIFE is none of their business, nor does THEIR RELIGION compel YOU to act in any given way. It is just not thier call. And I would be 100% happy to revoke the liscense of any pharmacist who does business that way. Period.
One final thing, because I titled this, "Contraception is not Abortion," I'd like to use some logic from a RW anti-abortion bumper sticker that I'm sure we've all seen: If it's not a baby, then your not pregnant! Well... I've already spelled out my thoughts on when the potential for life begins, but let's take that, and apply it to the bumper sticker logic... How about: If you don't have a fetilized embryo implanted in the wall of your uterus then you're not pregnant! Sound good? And how about: If you're not pregnant, the it's not an abortion? Here's another popular one: Abortion stops a beating heart! Well... Not if the embryo never implants in the uterine wall it doesn't! Because it never happens! And that what emergency contraception does. It prevents abortion (with is the ending of a pregnancy) by preventing the pregnancy from ever happening. No reasonable definition of "pregnant" could fail to include an embryo in the uterine wall, and no pregnancy test in the world would detect the embryo until after it implants. And once it does, no method of contraception will continue to work.
So, like I said: The clock is ticking. And the ER sure as hell is not the time or place to force your superstitious nonsense onto a rape victim, and end up victimizing her all over again. It's absurd, and anyone who would support such a measure fails basic logical reasoning, biology 101 and constitutional law. Any health care provider who would victimize any human being in this way deserves to lose their liscense revoked. Period. (After they've been sued for whatever they can be.)
You cannot have freedom of religion, until you have freedom from religion. And ALL of the founding fathers knew this to be true, regardless of what the modern conservative revisionist would have you believe.
Now... first let me handle that laughably hypocritical blog post. (1) Only Right-Wing morons think that voting for a bill means that you whole-heartedly support every single aspect of that bill. (And even THEN, only when it serves their purpose too!) So it's utter nonsense to think that by supporting the health care bill in general, that some how means she anti-abortion, becuase of the one ammendment in their in a vain attempt to pccify REPUBLICANS. Which brings me to (2) We all know who the "Pro-Life" (anti-Choice) party is, and who that ammendment is in there for. So don't go trying to make the Dem's look bad by saying their anti-abortion, even in cases of rape. They aren't anti-abortion at all, ins't that your lot's usual narritive? And seriously - since when did conservatives start caring about a woman's access to abortion services anyway? But even putting the author's hypocritical accusations aside, the two ammendments are a false comaprison anyway.
Brown's, which would allow providers to opt out of emergency contraception on religious grounds, is not the same thing as what's in the bill that Coakley supports, which would allow providers to refuse to perform abortions on religous or moral grounds. (And I love how he says that "even nmore broad" as if only religious people have the right to have principles! Typical RW, Christian arrogance.) But after reading all this, I thought I'd say a bit about how I see the abortion vs. emergency contraception argument.
I'm actually OK with the ammendment that Coakley can live with, and utterly despise the one Brown proposed.
With regards to abortion, I am 100% OK with a Doctor or other health care provider refusing to perform abortions, in all cases that don't save the life of the Mother. And Religion does not need to rear it's ugly, horned head in order for this to make sense. The principle here is very simple: The OB need merely see both mother and baby/fetus as his patients for his hypocratic oath to prevent him from doing harm to either. I will not put an instrument in someone's hand and legally compel them to do soemthing they feel is immoral. I will never "force their hand." What's more, I can support it on practical grounds, because abortions that are not life saving, very rarely (never?) need to be done RIGHT NOW. A given person usually has options other than the just the one doctor, and if they don't at the time, they still have some time to find them.
The situation is entirely different with emergency contrception. In order for this to be effective, it MUST be given within a specific time window. And the clock is ticking. If you're in a rural area, and the next hospital is a few towns away... THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. Niether is waiting until the next day. Now... let's say the Nurses, Doctors, etc... are all strict Catholics. Well... the church says. "No contraception." So... what does that mean for them? IT MEANS THAT IF THEY ARE RAPED AND FACING A FORCED PREGNANCY THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY!!! It certainly DOES NOT give them the right to deny legal and accepted medical care to a rape victim who either INS'T Catholic, or decides (as 99% of them do do) "Screw the church, I'm not having my rapists baby!" And refusing to give someone else emergency contraception is tantamount to raping them all over again. Worse actually, as it forces them to actually BEAR THE CHILD of their attacker. It's nothing more than a despicable forcing of THEIR RIDICULOUS SUPERSTITIONS onto someone else. Your religions binds YOUR OWN ACTIONS only. It does not bind those of anyone else.
And I feel every bit as strongly about pharmacicsts who refuse to fill birth control pill scripts. Putting aside that estrogen is used for far more than just contraception, this again is nothing more than them telling you how to live. Them forcing their values on YOU. If THEY don't believe in contraception, then it is on them not to practice it. They have no say in what YOU DO. YOUR LIFE is none of their business, nor does THEIR RELIGION compel YOU to act in any given way. It is just not thier call. And I would be 100% happy to revoke the liscense of any pharmacist who does business that way. Period.
One final thing, because I titled this, "Contraception is not Abortion," I'd like to use some logic from a RW anti-abortion bumper sticker that I'm sure we've all seen: If it's not a baby, then your not pregnant! Well... I've already spelled out my thoughts on when the potential for life begins, but let's take that, and apply it to the bumper sticker logic... How about: If you don't have a fetilized embryo implanted in the wall of your uterus then you're not pregnant! Sound good? And how about: If you're not pregnant, the it's not an abortion? Here's another popular one: Abortion stops a beating heart! Well... Not if the embryo never implants in the uterine wall it doesn't! Because it never happens! And that what emergency contraception does. It prevents abortion (with is the ending of a pregnancy) by preventing the pregnancy from ever happening. No reasonable definition of "pregnant" could fail to include an embryo in the uterine wall, and no pregnancy test in the world would detect the embryo until after it implants. And once it does, no method of contraception will continue to work.
So, like I said: The clock is ticking. And the ER sure as hell is not the time or place to force your superstitious nonsense onto a rape victim, and end up victimizing her all over again. It's absurd, and anyone who would support such a measure fails basic logical reasoning, biology 101 and constitutional law. Any health care provider who would victimize any human being in this way deserves to lose their liscense revoked. Period. (After they've been sued for whatever they can be.)
You cannot have freedom of religion, until you have freedom from religion. And ALL of the founding fathers knew this to be true, regardless of what the modern conservative revisionist would have you believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)