Honest to God, sometimes I hate my state.
During the arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today, regarding our 20-week abortion ban, our solicitor general said this.
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, a panel member appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, repeatedly expressed concern that the law might not afford women the opportunity to abort a fetus with birth defects in cases where the defects are not apparent until just before 20 weeks.
He also questioned the need to prohibit abortions at that stage of the pregnancy, especially for fetuses bound to develop “horrible birth defects.”
“They’re basically born into hell and then die,” Kleinfeld said. “I don’t see how the courts could act before viability” of the fetus.
“With due respect, that’s the woman’s problem,” responded David Cole, Arizona’s solicitor general. “She should have made that decision earlier.”
That is just disgusting.
Should have made the decision to do what? Not ovulate? Not implant a problematic embryo that would develop birth defects? Wow. I really enjoy the psychic power the simple act of existing grants a woman. Precognition is pretty useful sometimes.
Or maybe I just should have kept my legs shut in the first place, and I wouldn't have had to worry about any of this.
Whatever the second sentence actually means, the first is almost as terrible.
The birth defects are the woman's problem.
The fetus' suffering should its mother be forced to carry it to term is the woman's problem.
The woman's pain and anguish, and the pain of her partner and family, is her problem.
Ugh. I don't think I've ever heard anything that so actively illustrated the pro-life contempt for women.
Showing posts with label forced birthers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forced birthers. Show all posts
November 6, 2012
February 5, 2011
Boehner's Hypocrisy
How about that. John Boehner feels it’s perfectly all right for Americans to exercise autonomy over their own bodies by choosing to smoke or not to smoke a legal product--but wants to deny women the same autonomy.
Let’s look at the relevant quote.
“Bob, tobacco is a legal product in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And the American people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “The American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
Now let’s rewrite it a bit.
“Bob, abortion is a legal procedure in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And American women have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “Women ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
See how that works, if you’re truly against government intrusion into people’s lives?
But of course the Republicans aren’t, which they are showing us every day. Freedom (and the Constitution) be damned.
Let’s look at the relevant quote.
“Bob, tobacco is a legal product in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And the American people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “The American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
Now let’s rewrite it a bit.
“Bob, abortion is a legal procedure in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And American women have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “Women ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
See how that works, if you’re truly against government intrusion into people’s lives?
But of course the Republicans aren’t, which they are showing us every day. Freedom (and the Constitution) be damned.
October 16, 2007
The Bleating of Hypocrites
I know I'm a bit of a Johnny-come-lately with this video, but I wanted to throw my belated one-and-a-half-cents into the discussion.
Libertyville Abortion Demonstration
(Note: Embedding has been turned off via request.)
I know some people have strong positions on abortion, but that doesn't make their positions right or even defensible. This video shows that quite clearly. Every single person asked what the penalty for a woman having an illegal abortion should be waffled their answer. Obviously they didn't want to say women should go to prison for having abortions. (If that was the case, there would have to be a heckuva lot more courts, lawyers, judges, corrections officers, and prisons built, to handle the flood of women being convicted. This would only result in abortion being forced underground and more women dying. Is that what this country wants, even if we could afford it?) Only one person out of those questioned did say women should have jail terms, then backpedaled with the caveat "If she knew what she was doing when she killed her child..."
That response was, frankly, stupid, and cast women in a childish, second-class-citizen light. Women who choose to have an abortion most certainly know what they're doing. They don't want a child right now and they don't want to be pregnant--and they rightfully conclude that the rights of the adult, born, thinking person outweigh the rights of the nonborn, nonthinking clump of cells.
It astonishes me that anti-choicers (or forced birthers would be a more accurate term--people wanting to force adults to give birth, thus enslaving them to their reproductive organs) are so focused on the fetus they forget about--or, rather, choose to disregard--the person in whose body the fetus resides. It's as if after a woman gets pregnant, she turns into a walking uterus. No mind, no heart, no wishes or desires or rights, just a swollen organ. Of course, such disassociation is necessary for them to follow their twisted "logic" through to its end. But the inconsistency and senselessness of what they are trying to say comes out when they are asked questions like these.
If abortion is to be made illegal, then women who have one and the doctors (or midwives) who perform them should be punished. There's no other crime on the books that is not punished. If abortion is "killing" as people say, then the punishment should be harsh. I would think an eighteen- to twenty-year sentence would be appropriate for the person who was denied the right to live to adulthood. If people are not willing to punish women who have abortions...then it is not a crime and should be left up to, as one woman in the video says, between "her and God."
See how simple that is? If you have the strength of your convictions, you should be able to follow them through. If not, then you are floundering in inconsistency and hypocrisy, and as Shakespeare commented, are simply "sound and fury signifying nothing."
Libertyville Abortion Demonstration
(Note: Embedding has been turned off via request.)
I know some people have strong positions on abortion, but that doesn't make their positions right or even defensible. This video shows that quite clearly. Every single person asked what the penalty for a woman having an illegal abortion should be waffled their answer. Obviously they didn't want to say women should go to prison for having abortions. (If that was the case, there would have to be a heckuva lot more courts, lawyers, judges, corrections officers, and prisons built, to handle the flood of women being convicted. This would only result in abortion being forced underground and more women dying. Is that what this country wants, even if we could afford it?) Only one person out of those questioned did say women should have jail terms, then backpedaled with the caveat "If she knew what she was doing when she killed her child..."
That response was, frankly, stupid, and cast women in a childish, second-class-citizen light. Women who choose to have an abortion most certainly know what they're doing. They don't want a child right now and they don't want to be pregnant--and they rightfully conclude that the rights of the adult, born, thinking person outweigh the rights of the nonborn, nonthinking clump of cells.
It astonishes me that anti-choicers (or forced birthers would be a more accurate term--people wanting to force adults to give birth, thus enslaving them to their reproductive organs) are so focused on the fetus they forget about--or, rather, choose to disregard--the person in whose body the fetus resides. It's as if after a woman gets pregnant, she turns into a walking uterus. No mind, no heart, no wishes or desires or rights, just a swollen organ. Of course, such disassociation is necessary for them to follow their twisted "logic" through to its end. But the inconsistency and senselessness of what they are trying to say comes out when they are asked questions like these.
If abortion is to be made illegal, then women who have one and the doctors (or midwives) who perform them should be punished. There's no other crime on the books that is not punished. If abortion is "killing" as people say, then the punishment should be harsh. I would think an eighteen- to twenty-year sentence would be appropriate for the person who was denied the right to live to adulthood. If people are not willing to punish women who have abortions...then it is not a crime and should be left up to, as one woman in the video says, between "her and God."
See how simple that is? If you have the strength of your convictions, you should be able to follow them through. If not, then you are floundering in inconsistency and hypocrisy, and as Shakespeare commented, are simply "sound and fury signifying nothing."
October 3, 2007
Nicaragua's Shame
Ugh. This is just sad--and sick. (Swiped from Feministing.)
Over Their Dead Bodies
This is a very well-written (and quite chilling) report on the results of Nicaragua's total abortion ban. From the introduction:
Nicaragua is one of only three countries in the world to maintain a blanket ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, or life- or health-threatening pregnancies.1Such blanket abortion bans are incompatible with international human rights obligations, including obligations on the rights to life, health, and non-discrimination. Their imposition can, and most often does, have serious effects on the lives and health of women and girls.
Over Their Dead Bodies
This is a very well-written (and quite chilling) report on the results of Nicaragua's total abortion ban. From the introduction:
Nicaragua is one of only three countries in the world to maintain a blanket ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, or life- or health-threatening pregnancies.1Such blanket abortion bans are incompatible with international human rights obligations, including obligations on the rights to life, health, and non-discrimination. Their imposition can, and most often does, have serious effects on the lives and health of women and girls.
Nicaragua’s blanket ban on abortion was initially enacted in November 2006 and reaffirmed in September 2007, and includes a ban on previously-legal therapeutic abortions.2It allows for prison sentences for doctors who carry out abortions under any circumstances—even to save a pregnant woman’s life—and on women who seek abortions, again, regardless of the reason. Although it appears that actual prosecutions are rare, the ban has very real consequences that fall into three main categories:
- Denial of access to life- or health-saving abortion services;
- Denial or delay in access to other obstetric emergency care; and
- A pronounced fear of seeking treatment for obstetric emergencies.
The net result has been avoidable deaths.
From this article about who was behind the ban:
An outright ban on abortion in Nicaragua has caused the deaths of at least 80 women since it was imposed 11 months ago, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.
(snip)
Under the law, pushed by the previous conservative government and Nicaragua's powerful Roman Catholic Church, women who abort or doctors who help them risk three years or more in prison.
(snip)
The law's timing was seen as central to its success, as left-wing lawmakers reluctantly supported it to help Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega get the Church's backing to sweep back to power.
Folks, this is what happens when Christians--or rather, those who claim to be Christian--stick their noses into politics.
Catholic rules are just fine for Catholics--i.e., those who agree to abide by them. They do not work for anyone else. (They wouldn't work for me either, because the Bible says nothing about birth control--that is strictly a church invention, and has nothing to do with Christ. Frankly, the Catholic Church has nothing to do with Christ, but that's a rant for another time.) I know I've put some people's noses out of joint by stressing "rights" over "poverty," as if the latter is the only possible reason women have abortions. It is not.
In any case, it's irrelevant, because the bottom line is this: Should women have autonomy over their own bodies and lives or not?
If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter why women get abortions, only that they have that right. If you want to work to further the cause of sex education and birth control, along with eliminating poverty, then have at it. In the long run, giving women more control over their own lives and more choices can only be a good thing. If abortion rates fall, that would be wonderful as well. Especially if they should fall not because of ridiculous, counterproductive, blasphemous religion-induced laws, but because women A) prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place and B) are better equipped to deal with unwanted pregnancies should they occur.
I for one am not going to get involved with anything that has the possible consequences of killing women. Neither should any "Christian" church. If vengeance and punishment are to be meted out, that is God's right and responsibility alone, not any male-dominated religion.
September 29, 2007
Update: Mike Huckabee
Just a little something else I noticed, from the Mike Huckabee on Abortion page.
Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed
Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America? Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed
Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
HUNTER: Yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.
Notice who is making these statements:
White males.
Notice what they are leaving out:
Any mention of women.
Notice who would be most affected by this:
Women, who would now be chained to their reproductive organs, unable to make choices about what to do with their own uteruses (uterii?), forced to give birth whether they want to or not.
Notice what they do not regard women as being:
Human, since repealing Roe would be a "glorious day of human liberty and freedom."
You have got to be frakking kidding me.
White males.
Notice what they are leaving out:
Any mention of women.
Notice who would be most affected by this:
Women, who would now be chained to their reproductive organs, unable to make choices about what to do with their own uteruses (uterii?), forced to give birth whether they want to or not.
Notice what they do not regard women as being:
Human, since repealing Roe would be a "glorious day of human liberty and freedom."
You have got to be frakking kidding me.
August 30, 2007
Break These Chains
Today while out shopping, I saw this bumper sticker on a car at the public library.
CHOOSE LIFE
YOUR MOTHER DID
This is why I hate bumper stickers: they try to boil complex issues down to pithy, overly emotional sound bites, and invariably fail. In this case, the first thing that came to my mind was this retort:
"Well, you idiot, if she hadn't I wouldn't be around to worry about it, now would I?"
This is also true, but like the sticker itself, it doesn't come close to depicting the complicated reality of abortion. I imagine this particular fight will continue until the sun goes supernova (at which point none of us will worry about it ever again). Still, on the basis of the condescending, punishing attitude of most pro-lifers, I find it very hard to align myself to their side, no matter how religious they claim to be.
In fact, the more religious an anti-abortionist is, frankly, the less regard s/he has in my eyes, because of this simple fact: You have no right to force your religious views about life and the unborn on people who do not share your beliefs. I've said this before, but let me reiterate: It is none of my frakking business what another woman does with her body.
If anyone wants to ask me if I would have an abortion, the answer will be: it depends. If I became pregnant as a result of rape, the answer will probably be yes. (I say "probably" because this is one of those situations where you can't say for sure unless it actually happens.) Nevertheless, even if the answer was "no," the answer would be irrelevant. Why? Because my opinion does not and should not have the force of law.
This is where so-called Christians completely miss the boat. As I've said before, one of the worst things someone who professes to believe in Christ can do is get involved in politics. The two are diametrically opposed, and inevitably, each one will wreck the other. If you truly believe, why can't you trust God to solve these problems?
Besides that, do these people actually think through the implications of their own rhetoric? Do they really want to reduce women to the status of slaves, chained to their own bodies? I thought slavery was outlawed in this country; do we want to start it up again, this time encompassing 51% of the population?
(Of course, that wouldn't actually happen, because wealthy white women would still be able to get as many illegal abortions as they want.)
Make no mistake, banning abortion is another way of saying: We want to enslave women. We want to force women to give birth, because God knows the uterus and the embryo are the two most important things in the universe.
Now I'm getting snarky, but I'm not going to apologize. It disgusts me that these pseudo-Christians can't keep their beliefs (no matter how sincerely held) out of other people's lives. This, it seems to me, is completely ignoring the apostle Paul's advice.
"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody." (1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 New International Version)
Trying to force their beliefs on other people, through a political process Christians shouldn't be involved with in the first place, will win the respect of no one.
YOUR MOTHER DID
This is why I hate bumper stickers: they try to boil complex issues down to pithy, overly emotional sound bites, and invariably fail. In this case, the first thing that came to my mind was this retort:
"Well, you idiot, if she hadn't I wouldn't be around to worry about it, now would I?"
This is also true, but like the sticker itself, it doesn't come close to depicting the complicated reality of abortion. I imagine this particular fight will continue until the sun goes supernova (at which point none of us will worry about it ever again). Still, on the basis of the condescending, punishing attitude of most pro-lifers, I find it very hard to align myself to their side, no matter how religious they claim to be.
In fact, the more religious an anti-abortionist is, frankly, the less regard s/he has in my eyes, because of this simple fact: You have no right to force your religious views about life and the unborn on people who do not share your beliefs. I've said this before, but let me reiterate: It is none of my frakking business what another woman does with her body.
If anyone wants to ask me if I would have an abortion, the answer will be: it depends. If I became pregnant as a result of rape, the answer will probably be yes. (I say "probably" because this is one of those situations where you can't say for sure unless it actually happens.) Nevertheless, even if the answer was "no," the answer would be irrelevant. Why? Because my opinion does not and should not have the force of law.
This is where so-called Christians completely miss the boat. As I've said before, one of the worst things someone who professes to believe in Christ can do is get involved in politics. The two are diametrically opposed, and inevitably, each one will wreck the other. If you truly believe, why can't you trust God to solve these problems?
Besides that, do these people actually think through the implications of their own rhetoric? Do they really want to reduce women to the status of slaves, chained to their own bodies? I thought slavery was outlawed in this country; do we want to start it up again, this time encompassing 51% of the population?
(Of course, that wouldn't actually happen, because wealthy white women would still be able to get as many illegal abortions as they want.)
Make no mistake, banning abortion is another way of saying: We want to enslave women. We want to force women to give birth, because God knows the uterus and the embryo are the two most important things in the universe.
Now I'm getting snarky, but I'm not going to apologize. It disgusts me that these pseudo-Christians can't keep their beliefs (no matter how sincerely held) out of other people's lives. This, it seems to me, is completely ignoring the apostle Paul's advice.
"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody." (1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 New International Version)
Trying to force their beliefs on other people, through a political process Christians shouldn't be involved with in the first place, will win the respect of no one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)