Several days late for Blog for Choice
I ran across this in one of the childfree communities. Basically, someone writing for a teen-pregnancy-related affilitate of Focus on the Family starts off talking about how she finally, finally gets the pro-choice point of view. And then she spends a whole lot of time demonstrating that she really, truly, utterly doesn't.
And also, she has some seriously whack-a-doo ideas about how men and women relate to one another. But that's something else again.
This article makes me want to laugh because it's sort of cute when people claim to understand things they clearly don't. At the same time, though, it makes me angry.
Yes, the pro-choice position is mainly based in fear. Not paranoia about jack-booted thugs chaining us to the stove or the stirrups as she seems to imagine, but fear nonetheless. I think about Roe being overturned, and it scares the shit out of me.
What am I so afraid of? I'm afraid of not being able to act in my own best interests, pure and simple. Not being able to safeguard my own health, sanity, and general well-being, because doing so isn't in the best interests of a clump of cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence. People who can look at me and say, "Well, it's not mentally or physically advisable for you to carry a pregnancy to term, but your birth control failed, so I guess it just sucks to be you," frighten me. There's something...not necessarily inhuman, but absolutely inhumane about that sort of mindset. It is, to steal the term Dobsonites are so fond of using, unnatural to be so unfeeling toward a living, breathing human being right in front of you.
I think she is right about one thing--when the different sides are talking to each other about abortion, we're not talking about the same thing. They're talking about the unspeakable horror of slaughtering babies, and we're talking about the unspeakable horror of being trapped in a dangerous, miserable situation with no way out because your captor somehow "counts" more than you do.
The simple, brutal fact of the matter is that the best interests of the woman and the best interests of the fetus are not always compatible. When that happens, one of them has to be prioritized over the other. Pro-life, pro-choice--it's all about who you feel ought to be prioritized when there's a conflict of interests. Or rather, who you feel ought to make the decision about who gets prioritized. Do the voters and the lawmakers get to decide who takes priority, or does the person whose welfare is actually at stake get to make that decision? That's all the debate really boils down to, right there one short paragraph.
So why is it such a huge obnoxious thing? Why and how do we keep talking past each other on such a monumental level? How in the name of all that you hold holy can someone claim they just don't understand why someone would think abortion rights are necessary for women to be truly free and equal in a just society?
I think that the biggest problem is that each side views the other's primary focus as an unfortunate but unintended consequence. Pro-lifers focus on saving the "babies," and any physical, mental, emotional, or financial consequences to the women are basically collateral damage. Pro-choicers focus on what's best for the women, and the fact that the fetus by definition doesn't survive the process is, well, collateral damage.
It's something I ran across repeatedly in various Dope threads on the subject. I'd explain the various nasty repercussions a (hypothetical) pregnancy would have on my life and health in great detail. The response, "Well, gee, I certainly don't want to do that stuff to you. I just don't want you to kill the kid, ok?" :headdesk: Well, it would be just peachy if it and I could sit down and talk this over like reasonable people and reach a compromise that would be healthy for everybody. Your average fetus, however, is not very receptive to rational discourse.
And also, she has some seriously whack-a-doo ideas about how men and women relate to one another. But that's something else again.
This article makes me want to laugh because it's sort of cute when people claim to understand things they clearly don't. At the same time, though, it makes me angry.
Yes, the pro-choice position is mainly based in fear. Not paranoia about jack-booted thugs chaining us to the stove or the stirrups as she seems to imagine, but fear nonetheless. I think about Roe being overturned, and it scares the shit out of me.
What am I so afraid of? I'm afraid of not being able to act in my own best interests, pure and simple. Not being able to safeguard my own health, sanity, and general well-being, because doing so isn't in the best interests of a clump of cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence. People who can look at me and say, "Well, it's not mentally or physically advisable for you to carry a pregnancy to term, but your birth control failed, so I guess it just sucks to be you," frighten me. There's something...not necessarily inhuman, but absolutely inhumane about that sort of mindset. It is, to steal the term Dobsonites are so fond of using, unnatural to be so unfeeling toward a living, breathing human being right in front of you.
I think she is right about one thing--when the different sides are talking to each other about abortion, we're not talking about the same thing. They're talking about the unspeakable horror of slaughtering babies, and we're talking about the unspeakable horror of being trapped in a dangerous, miserable situation with no way out because your captor somehow "counts" more than you do.
The simple, brutal fact of the matter is that the best interests of the woman and the best interests of the fetus are not always compatible. When that happens, one of them has to be prioritized over the other. Pro-life, pro-choice--it's all about who you feel ought to be prioritized when there's a conflict of interests. Or rather, who you feel ought to make the decision about who gets prioritized. Do the voters and the lawmakers get to decide who takes priority, or does the person whose welfare is actually at stake get to make that decision? That's all the debate really boils down to, right there one short paragraph.
So why is it such a huge obnoxious thing? Why and how do we keep talking past each other on such a monumental level? How in the name of all that you hold holy can someone claim they just don't understand why someone would think abortion rights are necessary for women to be truly free and equal in a just society?
I think that the biggest problem is that each side views the other's primary focus as an unfortunate but unintended consequence. Pro-lifers focus on saving the "babies," and any physical, mental, emotional, or financial consequences to the women are basically collateral damage. Pro-choicers focus on what's best for the women, and the fact that the fetus by definition doesn't survive the process is, well, collateral damage.
It's something I ran across repeatedly in various Dope threads on the subject. I'd explain the various nasty repercussions a (hypothetical) pregnancy would have on my life and health in great detail. The response, "Well, gee, I certainly don't want to do that stuff to you. I just don't want you to kill the kid, ok?" :headdesk: Well, it would be just peachy if it and I could sit down and talk this over like reasonable people and reach a compromise that would be healthy for everybody. Your average fetus, however, is not very receptive to rational discourse.